# 1/3 Diameter Notch Rule



## RES (May 17, 2008)

I have always wondered why the manuals tell you to make the felling notch 1/3 the diameter of the tree and not more. When you make the notch the weight of tree above the notch is supported by the uncut lower portion. Therefore an overturning moment is created to cause the tree to fall towards the notch. When you begin cutting the opposite side and reach 1/3 that overturning moment no longer exists. From that point on the moment begins to turn the tree back towards the cutting side. It would seem to me that it would be better to make the notch 1/2 the diameter to avoid this from happening. The 1/3 notch seems to work. The only explanation that I would have is that when you make the notch, the overturning moment causes the flexible tree to shift its weight towards the notch. This is enough to cause the tree to fall towards the notch, even though the back cut is bigger.


----------



## Ekka (May 17, 2008)

RES said:


> I have always wondered why the manuals tell you to make the felling notch 1/3 the diameter of the tree and not more. When you make the notch the weight of tree above the notch is supported by the uncut lower portion. Therefore an overturning moment is created to cause the tree to fall towards the notch. When you begin cutting the opposite side and reach 1/3 that overturning moment no longer exists. From that point on the moment begins to turn the tree back towards the cutting side. It would seem to me that it would be better to make the notch 1/2 the diameter to avoid this from happening. The 1/3 notch seems to work. The only explanation that I would have is that when you make the notch, the overturning moment causes the flexible tree to shift its weight towards the notch. This is enough to cause the tree to fall towards the notch, even though the back cut is bigger.



Bugger me, dont they teach you ANYTHING over there! And they let you use saws.


----------



## pgg (May 17, 2008)

On a big tree in the wind I cut the notch way in over halfway even, then catch the rocking tree with a quick backcut, talking in the bush not in town


----------



## Ekka (May 17, 2008)

Geee, what about if it's windy and raining? Maybe go a bit more eh.


----------



## RAYINTOMBALL (May 17, 2008)

Ekka said:


> Geee, what about if it's windy and raining? Maybe go a bit more eh.



How hard is it raining?:hmm3grin2orange: :hmm3grin2orange: :hmm3grin2orange:


----------



## 2dogs (May 17, 2008)

Cutting a face 1/3 the diameter of the tree is a safe guideline for the trees most people will be falling. It is not written in stone and changed as conditions warrant. For me when cutting "larger" trees, say 4' DBH I will face the tree less than 1/3 the diameter. I always place a wedge and keep it snug and "never" cut through the hinge. BTW I am talking about firs, pines, redwoods, etc. Snags may require a deeper face, maybe a more open face then normal. 

A shallow face, a wedge, and a sharp chain with a powerful saw means the tree is unlikely to barberchair and less of a change to lift the root plate and the tree will jump off the stump and move away from me. Sometimes I don't want the tree to jump so I use a deeper open face. A good hinge means good directional control and a higher stumpshot will help the tree from coming back at me esp on flat ground.

Use what works for you as long as it is safe.


----------



## IchWarriorMkII (May 17, 2008)

Ekka said:


> Geee, what about if it's windy and raining? Maybe go a bit more eh.



I vote you continue being an ####### and not providing any useful information to this situation.


----------



## RiverRat2 (May 17, 2008)

*Lol!!!!!!*



IchWarriorMkII said:


> I vote you continue being an ####### and not providing any useful information to this situation.



+1 :notrolls2: :deadhorse:  opcorn: opcorn: opcorn:


----------



## Haywire Haywood (May 17, 2008)

If sarcasm is no longer allowed on AS then Darren might as well shut the site down now.

Ian


----------



## IchWarriorMkII (May 17, 2008)

Haywire Haywood said:


> If sarcasm is no longer allowed on AS then Darren might as well shut the site down now.
> 
> Ian



Sarcasm is a wonderful thing.

Not helping someone who CLEARLY could use some helpful advice is another, when it comes from a self proclaimed genius in the Arborist field.


----------



## Gologit (May 17, 2008)

IchWarriorMkII said:


> Sarcasm is a wonderful thing.
> 
> Not helping someone who CLEARLY could use some helpful advice is another, when it comes from a self proclaimed genius in the Arborist field.



Yup...gotta agree. Ekka, with his experience and knowledge, could have helped this guy. Instead, he chose to display his immaturity and shameful lack of humanity.

Hey Ekka...if the guy has a legitimate question, why not just answer it? If he argues with you or rejects your advice or turns out to be a cretin then you can whack him around a bit. Until then let's give him the benefit of the doubt.


----------



## wanab (May 17, 2008)

Gologit said:


> If he argues with you or rejects your advice or turns out to be a cretin then you can whack him around a bit.



sup, my pro!


----------



## pgg (May 17, 2008)

Ekka said:


> Geee, what about if it's windy and raining? Maybe go a bit more eh.



Geeee? Nah if it's raining AND windy you get wet then go home. As far as 1/3 notches, they're fine, but 1/2 way through makes no difference and I've seen many a strutting know-all out in the bush pissing their pants and wringing their hands over trivial crap. Give them a few weeks of felling hillsides every day - they soon learn to keep their 'expert' opinions to themselves....


----------



## SawTroll (May 17, 2008)

RES said:


> I have always wondered why the manuals tell you to make the felling notch 1/3 the diameter of the tree and not more. When you make the notch the weight of tree above the notch is supported by the uncut lower portion. Therefore an overturning moment is created to cause the tree to fall towards the notch. When you begin cutting the opposite side and reach 1/3 that overturning moment no longer exists. From that point on the moment begins to turn the tree back towards the cutting side. It would seem to me that it would be better to make the notch 1/2 the diameter to avoid this from happening. The 1/3 notch seems to work. The only explanation that I would have is that when you make the notch, the overturning moment causes the flexible tree to shift its weight towards the notch. This is enough to cause the tree to fall towards the notch, even though the back cut is bigger.




I see your point, but the answer is *Wedges....!!!! *


----------



## Tzed250 (May 17, 2008)

Gologit said:


> Yup...gotta agree. Ekka, with his experience and knowledge, could have helped this guy. Instead, he chose to display his immaturity and shameful lack of humanity.
> 
> Hey Ekka...if the guy has a legitimate question, why not just answer it? If he argues with you or rejects your advice or turns out to be a cretin then you can whack him around a bit. Until then let's give him the benefit of the doubt.



For real...


----------



## stihl 440 (May 17, 2008)

*notches.......*

I'm sorry but only 1/4-1/5 of the way in the tree for a notch for me. I've even had really good luck with 1/6 of the way in.......   :greenchainsaw:


----------



## redprospector (May 17, 2008)

1/3 is a good place to start (rule of thumb). There are a lot of different reasons to use different depths, undercut's, boring, etc. etc. etc.
When I'm training a new guy on my crew, I tell them; Untill you master the basics, stick with the basics.

1/3 is a good rule of thumb, but not carved in stone.

Andy


----------



## Ekka (May 17, 2008)

Heck, I even know of bigger geniuses that dont even use or need a notch ... they just back cut, rain hail or shine. LOL :greenchainsaw:


----------



## Haywire Haywood (May 17, 2008)

Ever watch the Europeans fell a tree? Real tall shallow face.. then they cut the sides down for some reason. I don't understand their technique at all.

Ian


----------



## rbtree (May 17, 2008)

Two reasons for trimming off buttresses:

Make the cross section smaller, and easier to cut when the bar length isn't sufficient to make the cut in one pass.

Create a more symmetric shaped log for the mill.

No one directly answered the original question, which assumed a perfectly balanced tree. In such a case, a deep face would undermine the center of balance and allow the tree to fall on its own. This technique isn't a good idea for most trees, as it removes so much wood, making gunnning corrections next to impossible. As stated a few times, I do this when aloft, and cutting vertical sections with no target behind the felling direction. Let the wood weight bring her over by itself.


----------



## vapnut257 (May 17, 2008)

I agree with SawTroll, I'm sold on wedges and stick with the basics. If your a novice you shouldn't be cutting trees on a windy or rainy day. Or if your a pro for that matter. Well placed wedges in the back cut will keep you from looking like a fool I don't care how straight the tree is. Anybody trying to yank a pinched bar out of a back cut is sweating bullets... I don't care how cool they seem to be.


----------



## stihl 440 (May 17, 2008)

*Haha*



vapnut257 said:


> I agree with SawTroll, I'm sold on wedges and stick with the basics. If your a novice you shouldn't be cutting trees on a windy or rainy day. Or if your a pro for that matter. Well placed wedges in the back cut will keep you from looking like a fool I don't care how straight the tree is. Anybody trying to yank a pinched bar out of a back cut is sweating bullets... I don't care how cool they seem to be.



HAHAHA...I've seen and laughed at too many guys doing this trying to impress me on their cutting skills......lol Like they had any.......lol:greenchainsaw:


----------



## stihl 440 (May 17, 2008)

*same here.....*



Haywire Haywood said:


> Ever watch the Europeans fell a tree? Real tall shallow face.. then they cut the sides down for some reason. I don't understand their technique at all.
> 
> Ian



Same here......I don't understand it at all. Trim the log once it's on the ground.........that's what I do.........:greenchainsaw:


----------



## buzz sawyer (May 17, 2008)

RES said:


> I have always wondered why the manuals tell you to make the felling notch 1/3 the diameter of the tree and not more. When you make the notch the weight of tree above the notch is supported by the uncut lower portion. Therefore an overturning moment is created to cause the tree to fall towards the notch. When you begin cutting the opposite side and reach 1/3 that overturning moment no longer exists. From that point on the moment begins to turn the tree back towards the cutting side. It would seem to me that it would be better to make the notch 1/2 the diameter to avoid this from happening. The 1/3 notch seems to work. The only explanation that I would have is that when you make the notch, the overturning moment causes the flexible tree to shift its weight towards the notch. This is enough to cause the tree to fall towards the notch, even though the back cut is bigger.



The main purpose of the notch is not to influence the balance of the tree, it's to create the front side of the hinge with which to control the direction of the fall. There are many variations of how to make the notch depending on the type and size of the tree and the lay of the land. The idea is to control the fall through the hinge and wedges or ropes.


----------



## pioneerguy600 (May 17, 2008)

buzz sawyer said:


> The main purpose of the notch is not to influence the balance of the tree, it's to create the front side of the hinge with which to control the direction of the fall. There are many variations of how to make the notch depending on the type and size of the tree and the lay of the land. The idea is to control the fall through the hinge and wedges or ropes.



+1 Thats what I was taught by my father and it has proved its merits through the years to me. Pioneerguy600


----------



## clearance (May 17, 2008)

stihl 440 said:


> I'm sorry but only 1/4-1/5 of the way in the tree for a notch for me. I've even had really good luck with 1/6 of the way in.......   :greenchainsaw:



You are asking for a tree to chair, a common reason in some fatality investigations here. Undercut too small.


----------



## oldirty (May 17, 2008)

buzz sawyer said:


> The main purpose of the notch is not to influence the balance of the tree, it's to create the front side of the hinge with which to control the direction of the fall. There are many variations of how to make the notch depending on the type and size of the tree and the lay of the land. The idea is to control the fall through the hinge and wedges or ropes.



yup and what rb said.

also you leave yourself a bit of hinge to help with the direction and control.

ya, once she's going she's going

but 

if you got some holding wood you can work with it to get it where you want it to go which is the reason for me to believe that you dont want to deep of a facecut.

but not every tree is the same hence certain cuts in certain situations.

also wedgies help your game.


----------



## RiverRat2 (May 17, 2008)

rbtree said:


> No one directly answered the original question, which assumed a perfectly balanced tree. In such a case, a deep face would undermine the center of balance and allow the tree to fall on its own. This technique isn't a good idea for most trees, as it removes so much wood, making gunnning corrections next to impossible. As stated a few times, I do this when aloft, and cutting vertical sections with no target behind the felling direction. Let the wood weight bring her over by itself.



+1


----------



## stihl 440 (May 17, 2008)

*lol*



clearance said:


> You are asking for a tree to chair, a common reason in some fatality investigations here. Undercut too small.



Look at where you're at and look at where i'm at....different wood= different cutting styles. Different locations= different cutting styles. I've only really had 2 trees barberchair on me........that's in maybe 10,000 trees...........that's pretty good IMO............ You can get in trouble with too big of and undercut as well......6 to 1, half a dozen to the other.........:greenchainsaw:


----------



## Lakeside53 (May 17, 2008)

here's my 1/3


----------



## Gologit (May 18, 2008)

Lakeside53 said:


> here's my 1/3



LOL...And then what?


----------



## Lakeside53 (May 18, 2008)

The rest of the story...

http://www.arboristsite.com/showthread.php?t=51277


----------



## 2dogs (May 18, 2008)

Lakeside53 said:


> The rest of the story...
> 
> http://www.arboristsite.com/showthread.php?t=51277



That was a great thread. When I saw that first pic I though uh-oh redwood heart rot before I realised it was a cedar. I have very very little experience with cedar trees, is the rot common? Second growth redwood will look that that when the dominant tree has grow around other sprouts.


----------



## clearance (May 18, 2008)

2dogs said:


> That was a great thread. When I saw that first pic I though uh-oh redwood heart rot before I realised it was a cedar. I have very very little experience with cedar trees, is the rot common? Second growth redwood will look that that when the dominant tree has grow around other sprouts.



Rot is the norm. Lake, you wasted wood, use a humboldt next time.


----------



## 2dogs (May 18, 2008)

clearance said:


> Rot is the norm. Lake, you wasted wood, use a humboldt next time.



Thanks. I always value your posts.


----------



## Lakeside53 (May 18, 2008)

clearance said:


> Rot is the norm. Lake, you wasted wood, use a humboldt next time.




:greenchainsaw:


----------



## Dennis Cahoon (May 18, 2008)

.....and whats up with that jehovah witness back-cut?......Hahahahahaha!


----------



## oldirty (May 18, 2008)

Dennis Cahoon said:


> .....and whats up with that jehovah witness back-cut?......Hahahahahaha!




not too sure how you west coast fallers do but i dont think i would want to be so high on that backcut. especially when using the conventional face cut.

did your saw get yanked out your hand? lol


----------



## Ekka (May 18, 2008)

He was trying to get closer to Jehovah :jawdrop:


----------



## Lakeside53 (May 18, 2008)

na.. I was much more concerned about the $300,000 borrowed backhoe 10 feet below the tree, coordinating with the guy pulling the tree with the truck (and the house to the right). I didn't know how hard the hoe was pushing or the truck was pulling, and how good the wood was (NOT!). Nothing "conventional" about this tree; 1/3 face would have just got me to the edge of the rotten center. Downed with "all face", no center, and not much of a back cut ("some" mechancial aids to help) and.. don't lump me in with west-coast fallers - I'm just an amatuer that provides laughs for Dennis


----------



## joesawer (May 18, 2008)

RES said:


> I have always wondered why the manuals tell you to make the felling notch 1/3 the diameter of the tree and not more. When you make the notch the weight of tree above the notch is supported by the uncut lower portion. Therefore an overturning moment is created to cause the tree to fall towards the notch. When you begin cutting the opposite side and reach 1/3 that overturning moment no longer exists. From that point on the moment begins to turn the tree back towards the cutting side. It would seem to me that it would be better to make the notch 1/2 the diameter to avoid this from happening. The 1/3 notch seems to work. The only explanation that I would have is that when you make the notch, the overturning moment causes the flexible tree to shift its weight towards the notch. This is enough to cause the tree to fall towards the notch, even though the back cut is bigger.



If everyone is done beating down a new guy and posturing, I will try to answer his questions.
As mentioned earlier a 1/3 notch is a good safe place to start. It gets you into good diameter for hinge wood (unlike the 1/5-1/6 notch) but leaves you some wood to work with to adjust your gunn, or line up your cuts before you get to the 1/2 mark that you should only go past in advanced felling techniques.
The tree should not move very much at all towards the notch when it is being cut. If it does it will try to pinch your saw as you make the notch and also will try to barber chair as the fall will almost certainly out run your back cut.
The weight will rarely shift towards the face cut on its own. Either the center of gravity is already on the notch side of the hinge or something will have to move it to that side in order for it to fall forward. The center of gravity would have to be between the outside edge of the stump and the hinge for the depth of the notch to come into play. Then you would have to cut the hinge up so small,l for the tree to start moving, that it would make me nervous.
Even though the back cut is about 2/3 it will only let the tree move backwards a small amount before it closes. If your hinge holds it will stay there until you move it forward. Ideally you should already have a wedge in the back cut or another method already in place to help move the tree forward. 
If the tree moves backwards and closes the kerf (the thickness of the saw cut) the farther from the hinge the kerf closes the less the tree can move back. The open face (notch) gives the tree room to fall and build momentum to break the fiber in the hinge before it closes.


----------



## oldirty (May 18, 2008)

Lakeside53 said:


> and.. don't lump me in with west-coast fallers - I'm just an amatuer that provides laughs for Dennis




lol

fair 'nuff.


----------



## RES (May 18, 2008)

Thanks for all the good advice. For all those years that I have cut down trees, I have always assumed that for a fairly straight tree, that all you had to do was cut the notch and then make your back cut. The tree would then fall in the direction of the notch. From this thread I have learned that this is certainly not true. You need to provide some means of directing the tree towards the notch, most easily done with wedges.


----------



## Lakeside53 (May 18, 2008)

So.... Wedges.. Today we use plastic wedges... What was in use 50 years ago?


----------



## Haywire Haywood (May 18, 2008)

Wooden wedges. they just hammered what they got out of the face cut into the back cut.  

Ian


----------



## RES (May 18, 2008)

My father was a carpenter. He make me wedges of red oak that always worked very well. The price was right too.


----------



## 24d (May 19, 2008)

Alot of times a person that has an abrasive personality really comes across as offensize when you are just reading words, however if you were with the person I'm sure it would just be "all in fun" I'm sure if we were all together that same person would keep us laff'n till our sides hurt.

Doug, I don't think that post had anything to do with it.


----------



## smokechase II (May 19, 2008)

*Variables in notch depth*

Perhaps the depth of the undercut should be on a tree by tree basis.

If you hear of a formula where "one size fits all" maybe your personal life experience will guide you.

********************

*"The main purpose of the notch is not to influence the balance of the tree; it's to create the front side of the hinge with which to control the direction of the fall. There are many variations of how to make the notch depending on the type and size of the tree and the lay of the land. The idea is to control the fall through the hinge and wedges or ropes."*

The above quote from this thread sounds typical of smaller tree (Scandinavian influenced) methodology. A smaller notch can work just fine when the forces aren't all that great to conquer. In fact, a shallower undercut is desirable as it provides more space to place wedges in certain diameters.

***********************

Where this fails is in larger diameters. Same physics, just more of 'em. The face cut also should be viewed as providing the initial 'release'. It is not just there to control the size of the hinge. Using the face depth to create a hinge dimension fails to take advantage of placing the fulcrum in an optimum location to lever. This becomes clear as one moves from smaller diameter shorter trees in northern latitudes, Sweden for instance, to larger diameter taller trees in the Western US and Canada.

An instance of where this very obvious is on a 'short stubby' or 'fat staub.' Picture a balanced 30 foot tall 5+ feet in diameter staub. If one were to place a small undercut in one of these guys you would fail. Too much weight to lift and no tall tree lever to assist. Those guys need face cuts 1/2th or even deeper. Physics. Take that knowledge and vary it back to the small diameter falling and then an understanding can become available as to the need/preference to do a deeper face on a tree by tree basis.
Why, because it _can_ make for less wedging needed.


----------



## Haywire Haywood (May 19, 2008)

drmiller100 said:


> rumor has it that cahoon got banned for life for this post.
> 
> 
> is this true???????



With any luck, yes. First I've heard of it though.  

Ian


----------



## 2dogs (May 19, 2008)

RES said:


> Thanks for all the good advice. For all those years that I have cut down trees, I have always assumed that for a fairly straight tree, that all you had to do was cut the notch and then make your back cut. The tree would then fall in the direction of the notch. From this thread I have learned that this is certainly not true. You need to provide some means of directing the tree towards the notch, most easily done with wedges.



One of the scariest situations that can occur is facing and backcutting a tree and not having it fall. Generally it is because the limbs of the tree to be felled are locked with one or more other trees. If the tree to be felled is dead and the sap is longer high in the trunk then the weight distribution is fouled up. Wedges or a jack is needed to make the tree commit to a lean. A throw bag and rope are good to have along also. If the tree is dead widowmakers are another problem, simlimb training can help keep you alive here. A wider maybe deeper face cut can help too. Each tree has to be looked at separately.


----------



## Chris J. (May 19, 2008)

A lot of times it's not a single comment that gets an AS member in trouble, it's their history of similar comments that does it. Kind of a 'last straw that breaks the camels back' thing. Also consider that some folks have been allowed back on AS (several times in some cases) with the understanding that they would be under closer scrutiny, & on a shorter leash.


----------



## windthrown (May 19, 2008)

Haywire Haywood said:


> If sarcasm is no longer allowed on AS then Darren might as well shut the site down now.
> 
> Ian


----------



## SawTroll (May 19, 2008)

smokechase II said:


> Perhaps the depth of the undercut should be on a tree by tree basis.
> 
> If you hear of a formula where "one size fits all" maybe your personal life experience will guide you.
> 
> ...




I believe that is true - good point about making room for the wedge in smaller trees.....


----------



## windthrown (May 19, 2008)

From my experience and observations, several factors influence face cut depth. One is that is has to be deep enough so that you get a good width of hinge. Smaller face cuts leave smaller length hinges for the tree to tip over on, leaving you with less hinge control. So you want at least 25% depth for longer hinges. 

If you go the other way, like as far as suggested in the original post on this thread with a 50% face cut, that gives you a longer hinge, but that also places the hinge on the back cut side of the tree. That tends to want to casue the tree to flip over the back cut, or even a bore cut, because the holding wood is all on the back side of the tree. The forces also tend to want to pinch your saw, and leave no room for wedges behind it. So a 40% face cut is about as far in as you want to go for a long hinge and placing the holding wood to the face cut side of the tree. 

Another factor that has not been mentioned is the leverage of the wedges when you pound them in. Basic lever physics is that the farther you are from the fulcrom (or hinge, in this case) the more mechanical leverage you will have with the wedge. Meaning the wedge will have more lifting force with a smaller face cut. So a smaller face cut favors both more leverage and more room for wedges behind the saw. 

In all, the 1/3 of the diameter is pretty much a compromise for having good holding hinge wood on the falling side of the tree, a good lever length on the backcut side of the tree and room for wedges behind the saw in a backcut. All things cosidered, I typically fall using somwhere between a 25% and 40% face cut. After doing a lot of screwup cuts, like Dutchman's and overcutting hinges, and cutting too big and too small a face cut, and too low and too high a back cut, and cutting at angles, and in the wind and rain and with dull chains, and at the end of the day, or well, screwing around, it all comes down to some average width of face cut. After a few barberchairs and back flippers, I started to pay more attention to details in face and back cuts and cutting depths.


----------



## Sprig (May 19, 2008)

smokechase II said:


> Perhaps the depth of the undercut should be on a tree by tree basis.
> 
> If you hear of a formula where "one size fits all" maybe your personal life experience will guide you.
> 
> ...



Agree in essense Smokechase, good post, another consideration with the deeper face is that it could leave little or no room for wedging should it be necessary, and loss of effectiveness of the hinge when the tree is halfway down and the mouth closes before the hinge breaks, decreasing directional stability, just a thought on a cloudy day, don't know if its been mentioned yet as I haven't read the whole thread yet (catching up), 



Serge


----------



## Haywire Haywood (May 19, 2008)

Lots of good input on this thread, despite how it started.  It appears (to me at least) that Smokechase and Windthown have different opinons as to depth of face. 

Windthrown says that the shallower the face, the more leverage the wedge has for moving the tree to the face side and Smokechase gave the example of a short fat heavy staub needing a deeper face because of the weight factor.

Now drawing on memories of my geometry teacher (Mrs Foxx) that I must have frustrated to the point of husband abuse each night, my understanding of these angles are as follows.

A shallow face cut moves the fulcrum (hinge) away from the wedge so it's easier for the wedge to lift the tree... but

with a deeper face cut, a 1" tall wedge inserted, altho harder to get in, moves the tree further toward the face cut.

The same amount of work is being done to move the tree a given distance. Drive the entire wedge in easily (shallow face) Vs drive the wedge in partially but with more difficulty (deep face cut)

It's a trade off and the biggest tree I've felled is 18". That should put some perspective on my opinions... LOL

Ian


----------



## maccall (May 19, 2008)

drmiller100 said:


> rumor has it that cahoon got banned for life for this post. is this true???????



Probably not, judging from the fact that you're quoting it and have not been banned.

We got notified some time ago that quoting what gets someone banned, will make the quoter banned the same as the OP...


----------



## buzz sawyer (May 19, 2008)

smokechase II said:


> ********************
> 
> *"The main purpose of the notch is not to influence the balance of the tree; it's to create the front side of the hinge with which to control the direction of the fall. There are many variations of how to make the notch depending on the type and size of the tree and the lay of the land. The idea is to control the fall through the hinge and wedges or ropes."*
> 
> The above quote from this thread sounds typical of smaller tree (Scandinavian influenced) methodology. A smaller notch can work just fine when the forces aren't all that great to conquer. In fact, a shallower undercut is desirable as it provides more space to place wedges in certain diameters.



You're 100% on the mark Smoke, I rarely get into anything over 30" and my comments were based on some skills I learned at a certain Scandinavian chainsaw falling demo - techniques that I have since used many times with great success.


----------



## smokechase II (May 19, 2008)

*Powerpoint slides in JPEG for discussion*

Illustrations covering a portion of this discussion.


----------



## Lakeside53 (May 19, 2008)

nice....


----------



## smokechase II (May 19, 2008)

*More*

A point not to miss is that the greater the distance the wedge is from the hinge the easier it is to drive the wedge.

This does not mean that a shallower face is the answer to all problems fighting a lean.
It would most of the time be superior when fighting a strong lean where the wedging technique is capable of countering the forces above.
When dealing with a moderate off lean, where there are forces way up high that are difficult to counter, that a deeper face could be the superior technique.


----------



## smokechase II (May 19, 2008)

*Not complete*

Needless to say; just part of the items to consider.
Treat above slides as incomplete.
Anyone is welcome to use or modify, just give the above caveat.


----------



## Haywire Haywood (May 19, 2008)

That was good smoke... one thing I didn't consider with my geometry ramblings is that it's not a simple fulcrum like a see-saw where all the weight is at the other end and you're simply moving the fulcrum and changing the arm lengths between the weight and the applied wedge... the weight is on TOP of the fulcrum and you are moving the fulcrum back and forth under it. A picture's worth a thousand words.

Ian


----------



## RES (May 19, 2008)

Great illustrations. I certainly appreciate all the effort you fellows are applying to this post. I now realize how little I knew about tree felling. I can now start using all those wedges I once bought.


----------



## Lakeside53 (May 19, 2008)

it get's worse.. even when you "know" all this stuff, it still take practise, practise and practise...even then every now and then, they still go astray...


----------



## stihl 440 (May 19, 2008)

*trees*



smokechase II said:


> Perhaps the depth of the undercut should be on a tree by tree basis.
> 
> If you hear of a formula where "one size fits all" maybe your personal life experience will guide you.
> 
> ...



I've cut a couple 5ft trees before (red and white oaks) and the 1/4-1/5 of the way in notch worked 100% perfectly. I've even cut a 15ft tall rotten poplar stub that was 4 1/2 feet across, and it fell fine with 1/4 of the way in notch...and it wasn't on a hill. But I sorta' understand what your getting at. If a tree is 1-2 feet in dia. and rotten as he11, then I cut 1/3 of the way in, sometimes it's a accident.....the saw was cuttin too quick....lol But I don't want to be sawin' and wasting time putting a 1/3 of the way face in a 5ft tree when, IMO 1/4-1/5 of the way works better.:greenchainsaw:


----------



## drmiller100 (May 19, 2008)

you guys are making this waaaaay too complicated.

look at the limits. if you make a 1 inch cut into a 2 foot diamater tree, the tree doesn't move.

if you take a 1.8 foot notch out of a 2 foot tree, the tree falls towards the notch, if it can.

KISS. the deeper the notch, the more counterballance weight, and the less weight you have to lift with the wedge.


----------



## redprospector (May 19, 2008)

I get the feeling we could be reading about some of you guy's in the injury & fatality forum.

Andy


----------



## sILlogger (May 19, 2008)

some notches that i use....dependent on the tree: size, species, form, condition, location topograpy, time of year..also what the tree needs to do on its way to the ground

critique and question at will

*known lean-trees lean was observable
*positive lean-tree was leaning in the desired direction

shallow face cut (36-38" poplar)-known positive lean





mid depth notch(54-58" oak)-known, semi-positive lean




fairly big notch(this tree was actually leaning fairly hard..but i had to stick the saw inside of it to bore out the heart of the tree)




and even no notch!! positive lean and lay


----------



## drmiller100 (May 20, 2008)

what the heck is that?????????

:jawdrop:


----------



## Lakeside53 (May 20, 2008)

What?


----------



## 2dogs (May 20, 2008)

drmiller100 said:


> you guys are making this waaaaay too complicated.
> 
> look at the limits. if you make a 1 inch cut into a 2 foot diamater tree, the tree doesn't move.
> 
> ...



So the solution is all notch a no face cut. Brilliant! Who needs direction control!

BTW I have yet to cut a tree with a "counterbalance". What do I look for?

Oh, and do I hold the tree on the stump with my off hand when using a Miller notch?


----------



## Haywire Haywood (May 20, 2008)

sILlogger. I have a question about that last one. It had a pretty good base swell. Would it have been a good candidate for trimming all the buttresses off European style like I was asking about earlier in the thread? Also, I don't see a hinge. Maybe it's covered up by all the chips.

Edit... just saw your comment... no notch no hinge. Interesting. I would have thought that would result in a bunch of fiber pull when it got close to letting go.

Ian


----------



## smokechase II (May 20, 2008)

*Short staubs*

*"I've cut a couple 5ft trees before (red and white oaks) and the 1/4-1/5 of the way in notch worked 100% perfectly."*

Was in response to:
"Picture a *balanced 30 foot tall 5+ feet in diameter* staub. If one were to place a small undercut in one of these guys you would fail. ..............."

******************

How tall were your 5 foot diameter trees and how straight?

My experience has taught me that, on this extreme and somewhat unusual cutting scenario that a shallow face is simply inadequate.

Where this has its best point is that it helps one understand a sliding scale of difficulties. Then, by interpolating in-between, a cutter can see that if nothing else, he can make it easier by adjusting technique.

*************

If you are dropping taller trees with even a little lean with the lean. No sweat. 
As you get closer to shorter and straighter, consider a deeper face to make it easier to wedge.

***************

I remember just ignoring some older fallers who would talk about having a 'bucket of wedges'. I thought they must be pretty sloppy going through that much plastic with their chain.

Looking at how flatter long wedges or metal ones drive so much more effectively, then how you need higher lift wedges at times etc. I have changed. I have a five gallon bucket about 2/3rds full of wedges.

You can't do this on a hillside, packing that many wedges, but they can be nice for near the road issues.


----------



## belgian (May 20, 2008)

It amazes me that there's still so many opinions and controversy on techniques about how to fell a tree, in spite of the many books, video's, etc. that have been published about it. Even more if you think about the huge experience that must be around in a region like the PNW. 

Every tree and surrounding is different, so there are quite some variables to take into account, but again, it is striking how many opinions we all have on this topic.

I am no logger by all means, and no way I am going to attempt to drop a tree again its natural lean for ex. if there's any risk to it. But I notice some strange techniques here proposed that do scare me equally.

What I am missing here is something like ' Will the real logger stand up and tell us how to do it....safely ?"


----------



## smokechase II (May 20, 2008)

*The real loggers*

The real loggers were those gentlemen who used cross-cuts to fell the big trees of a hundred years ago.

Have you ever seen a photo of a small shallow face in one of the Giant Sequoias, Coast Redwoods, Doug Fir or Spruce?

It was a huge amount of work to put a face in. The flat of the undercut was made with the saw and then the top was chopped out with double-bit axes.
Then the back cut was put in with the saw and it was followed by very flat 2 foot long metal wedges.

The face was more work than the back-cut.
So why didn't they go for a face that just went in 1/5th or 1/4th and save themselves a bunch of work?

The reason is because a face is the initial part of the release, not just the determination of hinge width. 
In larger timber, a deeper face can often make it easier to wedge. Simple.

If anybody ever on the planet would have understood this it was the Cross-cut loggers of the big trees.

*************************

Below is a picture of an open face notch from 1904.
Just kidding. Actually it was just the smallest face, (closest to 30% I would guess), I could find from Kinsey's historical photographs.


----------



## Marc (May 20, 2008)

smokechase II said:


> The real loggers were those gentlemen who used cross-cuts to fell the big trees of a hundred years ago.
> 
> Have you ever seen a photo of a small shallow face in one of the Giant Sequoias, Coast Redwoods, Doug Fir or Spruce?
> 
> ...



Good Lord. That tree would take me a month to fall with a cross cut. Or more. Doesn't even look like their saw is quite long enough...


----------



## smokechase II (May 20, 2008)

*Moral, morales and morels*

The moral of this story is don't ever get locked into a one size (or method) fits all deal.

*"It amazes me that there's still so many opinions and controversy on techniques about how to fell a tree, in spite of the many books, video's, etc. that have been published about it."*

The reason there are so many ways is because there are so many places.
Just possibly, the techniques that have evolved in different settings are there for a reason.


*****************

However, one can utilize knowledge and ..........


----------



## belgian (May 20, 2008)

smokechase II said:


> The reason there are so many ways is because there are so many places.
> Just possibly, the techniques that have evolved in different settings are there for a reason.
> 
> 
> ...



smoke, you seem a very knowledgeable dude. 

What I meant was that, of all the places that men have cut wood, the PNW should be at least one where they know what techniques are the most appropriate for medium and big size wood. Why does there seem to be no such thing as a "PNW consensus" ?? opcorn:


----------



## tatra805 (May 20, 2008)

Again a great thread! when will it ever stop...

I dont have the arrogance to think i can add something, i am learning here 


Now, back as a child i had the task to hold the rope and run with it once the tree came. (and keep it under tension all the time)

I was consulting with my father (who was cutting the tree, you figured) why the rope? if he was not using a face cut or something? (most trees no leaners)

He laughed and said, well son, that way i knew where you were standing and that you were going to run away from the danger zone when the tree started falling...

Took me 20 years to find out.......

But maybe as a help for the non experienced it can be an insurance having somebody pulling anyway. 

It is a scary moment when you finished all your cuts as supposed and the tree just stands there, not moving, and you wonder if a little bit more will tip it to the wrong side or not.

I would say the rope can help you there from doing stupid things in your learning period.

(just make the rope long enough)


----------



## 2dogs (May 20, 2008)

Yep, a rope can come in quite handy. Any rope can break, you have to place it high enough in the tree to have the desired effect, it has to be long enough, etc. Wire rope can be even better but that means heavy equipment or a truck to pull it. I like to anchor the rope slightly off to one side of the desired lay and pull sideways on the rope from the middle, more pull on the tree than just yanking on the end of the rope.


BTW do you own a Tatra 805?


----------



## stihl 440 (May 20, 2008)

*100*



smokechase II said:


> *"I've cut a couple 5ft trees before (red and white oaks) and the 1/4-1/5 of the way in notch worked 100% perfectly."*
> 
> Was in response to:
> "Picture a *balanced 30 foot tall 5+ feet in diameter* staub. If one were to place a small undercut in one of these guys you would fail. ..............."
> ...



On average I'm guessing the oaks I dropped where 95-110 feet tall. And do you think we would be logging them if the oaks wheren't straight?lol BTW......I am a pro logger........but I ain't going to carry a bucket full of wedges around in the woods......the axe, saw, and about 5 wegdes I have with me plus something to drink is enough for me to carry.....:greenchainsaw:


----------



## sILlogger (May 20, 2008)

Haywire Haywood said:


> sILlogger. I have a question about that last one. It had a pretty good base swell. Would it have been a good candidate for trimming all the buttresses off European style like I was asking about earlier in the thread? Also, I don't see a hinge. Maybe it's covered up by all the chips.
> 
> Edit... just saw your comment... no notch no hinge. Interesting. I would have thought that would result in a bunch of fiber pull when it got close to letting go.
> 
> Ian



AHH...

"Spur Cutting": but there was no fibre holding it...bore in the front and leave to 2 corners holding and leave the back...come back in and cut the 2 front spurs...get the saw out before it sets down on the saw...cut the back loose and the tree falls over...i use it sometimes on heavy leaners(2 spurs) and some high quality stuff in which i want no fibre pull...ive cut red oaks before with a good butt swell and left 7-8 "spurs"-looks like a burger king crown!!


----------



## sILlogger (May 20, 2008)

another thing that i think determines the proper depth of the notch is the growth form of a tree...

a tree with a known lean in the desired direction would not require as deep of a notch...

but a tree that is nearly perfectly balanced would need a deeper notch...atleast that is how i do things


----------



## Haywire Haywood (May 20, 2008)

Interesting, I've never heard of spur cutting before. I've read about quite a few techniques that I would like to eventually try but I think I'm gonna leave that one alone... LOL.

Ian


----------



## sILlogger (May 20, 2008)

Haywire Haywood said:


> Interesting, I've never heard of spur cutting before. I've read about quite a few techniques that I would like to eventually try but I think I'm gonna leave that one alone... LOL.
> 
> Ian



ha ha...it is actually kind of an ole timers form of cutting..alot of the veneer guys still use it..but not too many...i only use it on rare occasion..heavy leaners...or just to do it.....you have to watch out because sometimes it will pull the whole root out of the ground in the back!!


----------



## oldsaw (May 20, 2008)

Lakeside53 said:


> it get's worse.. even when you "know" all this stuff, it still take practise, practise and practise...even then every now and then, they still go astray...



And it's harder on hardwoods. I got really spoiled going from hardwoods in Minnesota to softwoods in Colorado. Softwoods are so much easier to read. Still, it takes practice and there is always a twist in the plan somewhere. Now I don't fall a lot of trees and I really have to think about them for a while.

Practice, practice, practice, you are absolutely right, Andy. Every tree you take down is "practice" since every one is different.

Mark


----------



## smokechase II (May 20, 2008)

*Small face and Barber Chair*

This photo is of a cross cut stump from maybe 60+ years before.

One way to risk a barber chair event is to place too small an undercut and wedge hard.

I cannot state that was what happened here but it seems likely.


----------



## oldirty (May 20, 2008)

belgian said:


> What I am missing here is something like ' Will the real logger stand up and tell us how to do it....safely ?"





uhoh... a challenge!


----------



## 2dogs (May 21, 2008)

smokechase II said:


> This photo is of a cross cut stump from maybe 60+ years before.
> 
> One way to risk a barber chair event is to place too small an undercut and wedge hard.
> 
> I cannot state that was what happened here but it seems likely.



That is a very good picture. I hope nobody died falling the tree.


----------



## treecycle (May 22, 2008)

*Those were the days*

Well put Smoke, if ever there was a time to follow the rule of thirds it was back before there were pull cords on saws. Huge trees, mass lean, how else could you salvage what you cut if it were not for a decent face. Misery whip in hand a deep face not only would initiate the fall but also lessen serious chance of chair. Staying at the stump and chasing the backcut with skip chisel though is quite different than a misery whip. Smaller trees, faster saws maybe we don't need face cuts? 

Sweet pic, that supposedly is the biggest tree ever recorded in Washington state, to bad they cut it down. 

 cheers www.treecycleseattle.com


----------



## Fuzly (May 22, 2008)

smokechase II said:


> The moral of this story is don't ever get locked into a one size (or method) fits all deal



Every one is a little different.

I think more in at least 80% of the tree diameter as the width of the notch (don't know if I'm wording that right) and get into the heartwood, then 1/3 in or whatever doesn't really matter. Usually less, but could be a bit more than 1/3 in.

But I'm all about the Scandanavian/Game of Logging/whatever you want to call it style now. Open face-bore in for the backcut.

I didn't always use that style, and in fact I cut a scrubby maple for firewood recently on a very steep hill and tried a Humboldt and it worked great thank you very much.


----------



## Haywire Haywood (May 22, 2008)

I cut down a pine tree today that was bigger than my bar. It was already topped and limbed so it was just a 12-14' stem. Good to try something new on (maybe). I did the face cut and then bored the center out of the tree through the face. Then I did my back cut from both sides. Did a bad job of making the two back cuts meet in the middle but it did go down exactly in the direction of the face cut. Unfortunately, my face cut was a little (lot?) off direction wise and the top ended up about 6' from where I wanted it. Had the stub been 3 feet longer, it would have crushed a swing set. LOL... It's amateur hour at the House of Haywire ! :greenchainsaw: 

Ian


----------



## Lakeside53 (May 22, 2008)

it might not sound manly, but put a string around the tree and draw the cut lines in with chalk...


----------



## Cedarkerf (May 22, 2008)

I use the saw to make superficel marks around the tree


----------



## CLEARVIEW TREE (May 22, 2008)

RES said:


> I have always wondered why the manuals tell you to make the felling notch 1/3 the diameter of the tree and not more. When you make the notch the weight of tree above the notch is supported by the uncut lower portion. Therefore an overturning moment is created to cause the tree to fall towards the notch. When you begin cutting the opposite side and reach 1/3 that overturning moment no longer exists. From that point on the moment begins to turn the tree back towards the cutting side. It would seem to me that it would be better to make the notch 1/2 the diameter to avoid this from happening. The 1/3 notch seems to work. The only explanation that I would have is that when you make the notch, the overturning moment causes the flexible tree to shift its weight towards the notch. This is enough to cause the tree to fall towards the notch, even though the back cut is bigger.


 I was taught in the Marines at MCES- Court House Bay, Camp Lejeune,NC while doing precision felling for tank traps, abatis', and diversion to always use the law of 1/3s and never more. In case the wind shifts and it does quickly, the more holding wood you've got the better. If you make a 50% deep notch then all you got stabilizing the tree is 50%, and 75% is better ya know and safer. We were shown how at times when needed, trees could be climbed, and rigged towards the half way mark with dynamite, C4 or preferably Det. Cord to strategically drop the tops in the road to block em(called an abatis) or even dropped on the enemy after they trip a wire from driving through! How's that for a solution for the customers house who has a problem gettin the check book out?


----------



## teacherman (May 22, 2008)

Fuzly said:


> Every one is a little different.
> 
> I think more in at least 80% of the tree diameter as the width of the notch (don't know if I'm wording that right) and get into the heartwood, then 1/3 in or whatever doesn't really matter. Usually less, but could be a bit more than 1/3 in.
> 
> ...



Whut's a Humboldt?


----------



## Lakeside53 (May 22, 2008)

a secret...:greenchainsaw: 

"search" is your friend...


----------



## Cedarkerf (May 22, 2008)

It an aircraft grade bolt for use in areas of harmonic vibrations


----------



## stihl 440 (May 22, 2008)

*lol*



Lakeside53 said:


> a secret...:greenchainsaw:
> 
> "search" is your friend...



LOL.....only the selected ones know what it is........ssshhhhhhh............especially over here on the east cost....people look at me funny when I cut a humbolt in a pine.......but it works in pine/softwood.....conventional for hardwoods.:greenchainsaw:


----------



## clearance (May 22, 2008)

Cedarkerf said:


> It an aircraft grade bolt for use in areas of harmonic vibrations



Awesome.


----------



## oldirty (May 22, 2008)

teacherman said:


> Whut's a Humboldt?



rep sent. 

lol


----------



## Fuzly (May 23, 2008)

Haywire Haywood said:


> I cut down a pine tree today that was bigger than my bar. It was already topped and limbed so it was just a 12-14' stem. Good to try something new on (maybe). I did the face cut and then bored the center out of the tree through the face. Then I did my back cut from both sides. Did a bad job of making the two back cuts meet in the middle but it did go down exactly in the direction of the face cut. Unfortunately, my face cut was a little (lot?) off direction wise and the top ended up about 6' from where I wanted it. Had the stub been 3 feet longer, it would have crushed a swing set. LOL... It's amateur hour at the House of Haywire ! :greenchainsaw:
> 
> Ian



Cool! It's great to talk things over and share information, but the only way to find out is to give it a try yourself.

I think your actually picked a pretty tricky one to practice on. Without the weight of the top and limbs to pull 'er over, I would go big notch and watch out for the stem "riding" the bar on the stump (once again, don't know if I worded that right).


----------



## teacherman (May 23, 2008)

teacherman said:


> Whut's a Humboldt?



I know it's a county in northern California whose primary export is a folk medicine for glaucoma, ever since the mighty 009 harvested so many of the redwoods  (or was it the 090?), but I think there is more to it than that. I'll check old threads. Just curious.:monkey:

OK, I got it now. It's an upside-down face cut. Saves wood at the bottom of the log. Cool. Works on BIG trees, many of which are in Humboldt County. Makes sense.


----------



## Haywire Haywood (May 23, 2008)

Lakeside53 said:


> it might not sound manly, but put a string around the tree and draw the cut lines in with chalk...



Now that's an idea. Will use that on the big oak I'm dropping sometime in the next couple weekends. It's 30"er.



Cedarkerf said:


> I use the saw to make superficial marks around the tree



I tried that.. but they didn't meet in the middle so I just winged it... LOL



Fuzly said:


> I think your actually picked a pretty tricky one to practice on. Without the weight of the top and limbs to pull 'er over, I would go big notch and watch out for the stem "riding" the bar on the stump (once again, don't know if I worded that right).



Yep... should have done a deeper face. It was about 1/3, but 1/2 might have been better. It needed 3" of lift to get it over. I had it wedged early on so no bar pinching occurred.

Ian


----------



## Tzed250 (May 23, 2008)

Haywire Haywood said:


> I cut down a pine tree today that was bigger than my bar. It was already topped and limbed so it was just a 12-14' stem. Good to try something new on (maybe). I did the face cut and then bored the center out of the tree through the face. Then I did my back cut from both sides. Did a bad job of making the two back cuts meet in the middle but it did go down exactly in the direction of the face cut. Unfortunately, my face cut was a little (lot?) off direction wise and the top ended up about 6' from where I wanted it. Had the stub been 3 feet longer, it would have crushed a swing set. LOL... It's amateur hour at the House of Haywire ! :greenchainsaw:
> 
> Ian



When you bore the face, poke the tip of the bar out the backside just a bit. It will show you exactly where to put the backcut in.


----------



## harrygrey382 (May 23, 2008)

Haywire Haywood said:


> I cut down a pine tree today that was bigger than my bar. It was already topped and limbed so it was just a 12-14' stem. Good to try something new on (maybe). I did the face cut and then bored the center out of the tree through the face. Then I did my back cut from both sides. Did a bad job of making the two back cuts meet in the middle but it did go down exactly in the direction of the face cut. Unfortunately, my face cut was a little (lot?) off direction wise and the top ended up about 6' from where I wanted it. Had the stub been 3 feet longer, it would have crushed a swing set. LOL... It's amateur hour at the House of Haywire ! :greenchainsaw:
> 
> Ian



OK, I'm a noob re fancy felling techniques, but why use this method? Why do you want to take the centre out of the hinge?


----------



## Lakeside53 (May 23, 2008)

Haywire Haywood said:


> Now that's an idea. Will use that on the big oak I'm dropping sometime in the next couple weekends. It's 30"er.





And if you are on the lines, no one will ever know...:greenchainsaw: 

A small plastic plumbers level placed on the bar works well also... It's amazing how far out your can be on sloping ground or with leaning trees.


----------



## Haywire Haywood (May 23, 2008)

harrygrey382 said:


> OK, I'm a noob re fancy felling techniques, but why use this method? Why do you want to take the centre out of the hinge?



Actually I didn't need to use that with this tree, I just wanted to try it. If you have a tree that is more than twice your bar length in diameter (which this one wasn't), you bore into the face at the level that your back cut will be and sweep the center of the tree out. That way when you do your back cut you no longer have to worry about the bar not being long enough to reach the middle from each side. I suppose you would try to plunge it in and take as little of the actual hinge out as you can. I found it difficult to do the sweep since I wasn't able to use my dogs as a pivot and ended up taking out more of the hinge than I liked. A set of large dogs and a more open face would have made it easier. I was smart enough to keep the camera pointed away from that stump. LOL

Ian


----------



## harrygrey382 (May 23, 2008)

Haywire Haywood said:


> Actually I didn't need to use that with this tree, I just wanted to try it. If you have a tree that is more than twice your bar length (which this one wasn't), you bore into the face at the level that your back cut will be and take the center of the tree out. That way when you do your back cut you no longer have to worry about the bar not being long enough to reach the middle from each side.
> 
> Ian


gotcha


----------



## Haywire Haywood (May 23, 2008)

Lakeside53 said:


> A small platic plumbers level placed on the bar works well also... It's amazing how far out your can be on sloping ground or with leaning trees.



Hehe.... I fixed this bubble level up with a magnetic base last year for exactly that purpose, but never have used it.


----------



## Tzed250 (May 23, 2008)

Haywire Haywood said:


> Hehe.... I fixed this bubble level up with a magnetic base last year for exactly that purpose, but never have used it.



Hmmm... A Starrett...got one of those too.


----------



## geocom (May 23, 2008)

*holy crap*



Gologit said:


> LOL...And then what?



Okay so I have some experience with felling here in the midwest 
and even some from when I went to school in Montana 

but if my little MS250 saw that picture of that huge notch she wouldn't even start lol 
that is awesome she would refuse to do anything out of fear 




Respectfully 
GEO


----------



## Lakeside53 (May 23, 2008)

:hmm3grin2orange:


----------



## redprospector (May 23, 2008)

Nothing huge, nothing fancy, just a decent stump.
It was a 22" dbh Ponderosa Pine. State Forestry won't allow humbolt's on this job (sorry).










Andy


----------



## sILlogger (May 23, 2008)

redprospector said:


> Nothing huge, nothing fancy, just a decent stump.
> It was a 22" dbh Ponderosa Pine. State Forestry won't allow humbolt's on this job (sorry).
> 
> 
> ...



good looking stump...what was the saw/bar combo?

here is one i cut awhile back..it is about 5 1/2' across, 660 w/36", slightly different cutting method....I use 2 "ears" at the corners of the hinge rather than a solid hinge all the way across..had to swing this one away from the railroad tracks..so i started on the far side of the stump and came around...works like a charm.




and this is the tree that it came from


----------



## redprospector (May 23, 2008)

I used a 372 with a 28" bar. No need to use anything big on these thinning job's.

Andy


----------



## Lakeside53 (May 23, 2008)

redprospector said:


> N State Forestry won't allow humbolt's on this job (sorry).
> 
> 
> 
> Andy




Why???


----------



## sILlogger (May 23, 2008)

redprospector said:


> I used a 372 with a 28" bar. No need to use anything big on these thinning job's.
> 
> Andy



I bet that 372 was stock wasn't it?:greenchainsaw: what is your big woods saw?


----------



## redprospector (May 23, 2008)

Lakeside53 said:


> Why???



That's the same thing I asked the forester. One thing is they want a 6" stump height. 
Other than that, your guess is as good as mine because I didn't really get an answer.

Andy


----------



## redprospector (May 23, 2008)

sILlogger said:


> I bet that 372 was stock wasn't it?:greenchainsaw: what is your big woods saw?



Yep, it actually is. Muffler isn't even modded. The National Forest is closed due to fire season, we're working on private land but the saw's have to be inspected. Modded mufflers won't fly here in fire season.
My big wood saw is a 3120 (just a little modification) & what ever bar I feel big enough to handle that day. 

Andy


----------



## Gologit (May 23, 2008)

redprospector said:


> That's the same thing I asked the forester. One thing is they want a 6" stump height.
> Other than that, your guess is as good as mine because I didn't really get an answer.
> 
> Andy



Maybe you can press him a little. I'm really curious about his reason for no Humboldt. Did he even know what one was?


----------



## redprospector (May 23, 2008)

Gologit said:


> Maybe you can press him a little. I'm really curious about his reason for no Humboldt. Did he even know what one was?



I'm not sure if he know's or not. He's the new kid on the block, in his early 20's. When he come's for our next inspection I think I'll have a couple of stump's waiting for him to see what he say's.

Andy


----------



## Gologit (May 23, 2008)

redprospector said:


> I'm not sure if he know's or not. He's the new kid on the block, in his early 20's. When he come's for our next inspection I think I'll have a couple of stump's waiting for him to see what he say's.
> 
> Andy



Good idea. Educate him...do him and yourself a favor. Yelling at new foresters just confuses and embarasses them and they take refuge in their rule books and pamphlets and nothing constructive gets done. You've got the right idea...go for it.


----------



## clearance (May 23, 2008)

redprospector said:


> I'm not sure if he know's or not. He's the new kid on the block, in his early 20's. When he come's for our next inspection I think I'll have a couple of stump's waiting for him to see what he say's.
> 
> Andy



Wouldn't suprise me. Humbolt is the safest undercut, it ain't coming back. This 6'' rule is ghey, I would fall it cock height and then buck off the stump.


----------



## redprospector (May 23, 2008)

clearance said:


> Wouldn't suprise me. Humbolt is the safest undercut, it ain't coming back. This 6'' rule is ghey, I would fall it cock height and then buck off the stump.



I'm falling them with about a 12" stump and then bucking them off if I think I need to. Bad part is there's a lot of stump's on this job.
I'm trying to convince him that it's dangerous to fell a tree with a 6" stump.

Andy


----------



## sILlogger (May 23, 2008)

redprospector said:


> I'm falling them with about a 12" stump and then bucking them off if I think I need to. Bad part is there's a lot of stump's on this job.
> I'm trying to convince him that it's dangerous to fell a tree with a 6" stump.
> 
> Andy



do you run into some pretty big stuff that u need the 3120? also, what is the reasoning behind a 6" stump being dangerous? being hunched over and not being able to look up as easy? it is definitely a different ball game out there


----------



## redprospector (May 23, 2008)

sILlogger said:


> do you run into some pretty big stuff that u need the 3120? also, what is the reasoning behind a 6" stump being dangerous? being hunched over and not being able to look up as easy? it is definitely a different ball game out there



Once in a while I run across one that just beg's for the 3120.






Being hunched over is just one part of it being dangerous. The terrain is steep enough in most area's here to make a 6" stump a killer.

Andy


----------



## sILlogger (May 23, 2008)

redprospector said:


> Once in a while I run across one that just beg's for the 3120.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



u must be the scruffy one in the pic! nice log there! when they say a 6" stump would that be 6" on the downhill side? cuz that could definitely post some problems on steep ground


----------



## redprospector (May 24, 2008)

High side. It can be done, but why? 

Andy


----------



## sILlogger (May 24, 2008)

redprospector said:


> High side. It can be done, but why?
> 
> Andy



true...

how do they grade the timber out there? or do they have different grade designations for the logs? around here the trees get cut according to different grade logs...the butt log is typically the highest value...and the lower the better(buyers want to see the log as low as possible to check for defects and such) i cut alot of stump where my clutch cover is raking leaves on my way around the tree...

different cuttng technique for diffent trees/areas i suppose:greenchainsaw:


----------



## redprospector (May 24, 2008)

Grading is pretty simple around here. It's either a "saw log" or firewood. 
All the mill's but one have shut down in our area, and their not buying log's because there's not much competition for timber sale's. He keeps his crew's buisy and has all he want's to saw.

Andy


----------



## sILlogger (May 24, 2008)

redprospector said:


> Grading is pretty simple around here. It's either a "saw log" or firewood.
> All the mill's but one have shut down in our area, and their not buying log's because there's not much competition for timber sale's. He keeps his crew's buisy and has all he want's to saw.
> 
> Andy



o...wow..that makes life easy...1)veneer 2)grade 1&2determined by size, species & quality (length limited by defect). 3)tie logs-(railroad ties) determined by size, species and quality, length (usually 9 foot) determined by demand. 4)blocking-determined by size, species, demand; i cut them anywhere from 8-40' logs. 

and many more headaches


----------



## joesawer (May 24, 2008)

I frequently have a 8" stump limit here. The level stump rule is for the people who leave the fiber pull sticking up like punji stakes and for the sporax specs. The sporax calls for a level stump, so that it wont fall/wash off as much.
A few years ago I had a young know it all tell me that I had to go back and cut all the stumps off flat on an 160 acre job. Fortunatly for me cooler and wiser heads prevailed. But that individual has had it in for me ever since and this past winter he finally got me, and shot himself right in the foot doing it, he got a pretty serious demotion.
For me it is much easier and faster to cut the stump at 8" first and then just cut the splinters off than to cut the tree and then make cut the stump off again. ( Don't read this part Slowp) If it is over 8" just kick a little duff up against the up hill side. It just does not make any since to hang around cutting stumps off. In fact they are a whole lot easier to cut when they are still fastened to the tree.
But some times it is unsafe or not possible to cut the stump low to start with. Here a couple that I cut off high and then went back and cut the stump down.
The first leaned heavy to the side and back. I had a line in it and pulled it over as the back cut advanced. Then it had to jump over the deck rail. It is a conventional face at close to 1/3.
The second was over a highway. I used a humbolt at near 50%. I don't have a pic of the stump but you can see the butt in the last pic.


----------



## redprospector (May 24, 2008)

sILlogger said:


> o...wow..that makes life easy...1)veneer 2)grade 1&2determined by size, species & quality (length limited by defect). 3)tie logs-(railroad ties) determined by size, species and quality, length (usually 9 foot) determined by demand. 4)blocking-determined by size, species, demand; i cut them anywhere from 8-40' logs.
> 
> and many more headaches



Hahahaha. I wish I had a few more headaches. When was the last time you delivered good log's to the mill for $200 a thousand? I don't even have that option anymore. Comoooooooon headache's, bring em on.

Life ain't easy, but life is good. 

Andy


----------



## redprospector (May 24, 2008)

joesawer said:


> I frequently have a 8" stump limit here. The level stump rule is for the people who leave the fiber pull sticking up like punji stakes and for the sporax specs. The sporax calls for a level stump, so that it wont fall/wash off as much.
> A few years ago I had a young know it all tell me that I had to go back and cut all the stumps off flat on an 160 acre job. Fortunatly for me cooler and wiser heads prevailed. But that individual has had it in for me ever since and this past winter he finally got me, and shot himself right in the foot doing it, he got a pretty serious demotion.
> For me it is much easier and faster to cut the stump at 8" first and then just cut the splinters off than to cut the tree and then make cut the stump off again. ( Don't read this part Slowp) If it is over 8" just kick a little duff up against the up hill side. It just does not make any since to hang around cutting stumps off. In fact they are a whole lot easier to cut when they are still fastened to the tree.
> But some times it is unsafe or not possible to cut the stump low to start with. Here a couple that I cut off high and then went back and cut the stump down.
> ...



Yeah, they used to say 8" here, I don't know where the 6" stuff came from.
2" dosen't sound like much, but it's a big difference.

Andy


----------



## sILlogger (May 24, 2008)

redprospector said:


> Hahahaha. I wish I had a few more headaches. When was the last time you delivered good log's to the mill for $200 a thousand? I don't even have that option anymore. Comoooooooon headache's, bring em on.
> 
> Life ain't easy, but life is good.
> 
> Andy



yea..everything is still rolling good in the hardwood...hickory and red oak prices have dropped due to the housing slump...but all the other markets are going great....White Oak and Walnut are OUTRAGEOUS!! some of the best stuff i've cut is going for $8,000-$10,000/mbf. but that is for the best of veneer. alot of it is going $2,000mbf.


----------



## smokechase II (May 25, 2008)

*Humboldt stump height*

A minor scam out west is the use of the Humboldt to leave a 'short stump'.

The way this is legally complied with is any portion of the stump being within ____" of the ground. The bottom of the face meets whatever this requirement is locally, even though most of the stump is above or well above that height.

On most trees, the lowest stump is a conventional face. Exception to this is where the tree is being fell in the same direction as the low side of the stump. (Commonly this is dropping the tree downhill.)
In these situations the Humboldt gets the greatest utilization AND leaves the smallest stump.

********************

Anyone noticed how high the stumps are on AxMen? Those aren't even old growth butt swells. 
Administration is everything.


----------



## Gologit (May 25, 2008)

smokechase II said:


> A minor scam out west is the use of the Humboldt to leave a 'short stump'.
> 
> The way this is legally complied with is any portion of the stump being within ____" of the ground. The bottom of the face meets whatever this requirement is locally, even though most of the stump is above or well above that height.
> 
> ...


----------



## ropensaddle (May 25, 2008)

SawTroll said:


> I see your point, but the answer is *Wedges....!!!! *



I see your point but the true answer is: big Winch


----------



## Burvol (May 25, 2008)

ropensaddle said:


> I see your point but the true answer is: big Winch



Wedges!!!! AND THE 361 with a bottle of magic elixcer.


----------



## Burvol (May 25, 2008)

smokechase II said:


> A minor scam out west is the use of the Humboldt to leave a 'short stump'.
> 
> The way this is legally complied with is any portion of the stump being within ____" of the ground. The bottom of the face meets whatever this requirement is locally, even though most of the stump is above or well above that height.
> 
> ...



I cut really low stumps everytime I can. We get a$$ chewed for leaving a high stump, plus it's a laziness and sign of not being capable. Sometimes you have to here and there though. A person can do a kick with their corks around a tree to get your wrap down lower (if on that side, know of guys that cut under the side lean because of comfort or laziness, and have sawed the back corner off and smashed a saw) or with a 32" bar, learn to face a tree with out dogs. LOGS HANG UP ON STUMPS! I'm cutting some Grand Fir for pulp with a few saw logs too, so I am cutting those puppies really low, there's all your $$$.


----------



## smokechase II (May 30, 2008)

*Good reason not to do a 7/8th notch*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=169Z_pv5Xns&feature=related

Even the old arborist rope trick can't fix everything.


----------



## clearance (May 30, 2008)

Burvol said:


> I cut really low stumps everytime I can. We get a$$ chewed for leaving a high stump, plus it's a laziness and sign of not being capable. Sometimes you have to here and there though. A person can do a kick with their corks around a tree to get your wrap down lower (if on that side, know of guys that cut under the side lean because of comfort or laziness, and have sawed the back corner off and smashed a saw) or with a 32" bar, learn to face a tree with out dogs. LOGS HANG UP ON STUMPS! I'm cutting some Grand Fir for pulp with a few saw logs too, so I am cutting those puppies really low, there's all your $$$.



Laziness huh? Pretty hard to look up, and real hard to move when you are on your knees. Lower the ground with your caulks?, c'mon.


----------



## ropensaddle (May 30, 2008)

Burvol said:


> I cut really low stumps everytime I can. We get a$$ chewed for leaving a high stump, plus it's a laziness and sign of not being capable. Sometimes you have to here and there though. A person can do a kick with their corks around a tree to get your wrap down lower (if on that side, know of guys that cut under the side lean because of comfort or laziness, and have sawed the back corner off and smashed a saw) or with a 32" bar, learn to face a tree with out dogs. LOGS HANG UP ON STUMPS! I'm cutting some Grand Fir for pulp with a few saw logs too, so I am cutting those puppies really low, there's all your $$$.



I grind them but in some areas I would rather them left high,
nothing like getting hung on a stump you could not see in the tall grass!
In a yard I will cut the tree where it is comfortable, then cut the stump low!


----------



## ClimbinArbor (May 30, 2008)

ropensaddle said:


> I grind them but in some areas I would rather them left high,
> nothing like getting hung on a stump you could not see in the tall grass!
> In a yard I will cut the tree where it is comfortable, then cut the stump low!



yup

i normally fell a tree at waist height and get the stump as low to the ground as i can without touching dirt.


----------



## Burvol (May 30, 2008)

clearance said:


> Laziness huh? Pretty hard to look up, and real hard to move when you are on your knees. Lower the ground with your caulks?, c'mon.



Ya, just kick a little dirt and needles away for your wrap handle to get down lower, that is what I am talking about. How is that absurd? Are higher stumps common in BC? Yes, there are times when making a high stump is nessacery due to defect or safety, but anyone I have ever cut for wants a low stump. If a guy has to put a back cut in on your knees, then laziness or being out of shape to cut would stand to reason.


----------



## ropensaddle (May 30, 2008)

I sometimes leave the stump 12 foot high cleanup brush and
then hook my winch and up root the joker, then load the trunk
and root ball with my grapple. This saves me fuel to come back for one stump.


----------



## Wood Doctor (May 30, 2008)

*Study the Tree First*

Every tree is different in my book. Study it carefully before you start the saw.

You can get by with a smaller than 1/3 notch if the tree is already leaning hard. If it's dead straight, a 1/3 notch is fine. I usually cut a 1/2 notch, but that's my preference.

Now, if it's leaning the wrong way, start working from the top down and get the weight off the wrong side so that it's not leaning the wrong way. You may still have to use anchor ropes because to stop a monster from defying gravity is a dangerous bear cat. And, use felling wedges.

Tree felling accidents are one of the reasons why a chainsaw sawyer happens to be the second most dangerous occupation that there is.


----------



## ropensaddle (May 30, 2008)

Wood Doctor said:


> Every tree is different in my book. Study it carefully before you start the saw.
> 
> You can get by with a smaller than 1/3 notch if the tree is already leaning hard. If it's dead straight, a 1/3 notch is fine. I usually cut a 1/2 notch, but that's my preference.
> 
> ...



 use big winch and leave wedges in my bins. I trust my 40000 lb
winch more than any wedge. I have roped and wedged too, I will never 
look back, no falling to the side,no snapped ropes stuck wedges or bars.
My large pto winch two speed, will bring over most any tree I see if there 
is room to lay it down. I am confident to do just that. I have brought over
some serious leaners,rot outs etc. I feel every pro should have one mounted
on their bucket, oh no stuck trucks, no wrecker bill in ice storm work no
problem that a thorough understanding of pull points and force can not
accomplish.


----------



## Wood Doctor (May 30, 2008)

"My large pto winch two speed, will bring over most any tree I see if there 
is room to lay it down. I am confident to do just that."
------------------------
That's good. However, a few years back I also watched a big cottonwood drag a hefty John Deere tractor backwards for 40 feet with a cable attached about two-thirds the way up. The Deere could not begin to hold that tree, winch or no winch. You should have seen what was left of the sawyer's bar and chain, trapped in the felling kerf.


----------



## Haywire Haywood (May 30, 2008)

Put a big winch on something and it will move... the tree or the truck... depending on which is heavier. Something has to be the anchor and the biggest mass takes the prize.

Ian


----------



## 2dogs (May 30, 2008)

A stout wire rope and a winch or an anchored truck can really help and cut down the time needed to drop a small to medium size leaner. Around 28-30" DBH and you had better have a D6 or larger stuck onto that winch. Wire rope can break too, don't forget that. Fittings can fail, so can chokers. I would always start by placing wedges and then have the winch help pull it over, unless the tree is only a foot or so in diameter. 

Reading the tree and wedging are basic skills everyone who falls a tree needs. I'm not talking about standing up a leaner, just basic falling. If in doubt call a pro.

BTW go to youtube.com and key in tree falling accidents or tree oops, or some similar key words and prepare to be entertained


----------



## 2dogs (May 30, 2008)

Haywire Haywood said:


> Put a big winch on something and it will move... the tree or the truck... depending on which is heaviest. Something has to be the anchor and the biggest mass takes the prize.
> 
> Ian



VERY TRUE! And a moving tree generates even more energy.


----------



## ropensaddle (May 30, 2008)

Wood Doctor said:


> "My large pto winch two speed, will bring over most any tree I see if there
> is room to lay it down. I am confident to do just that."
> ------------------------
> That's good. However, a few years back I also watched a big cottonwood drag a hefty John Deere tractor backwards for 40 feet with a cable attached about two-thirds the way up. The Deere could not begin to hold that tree, winch or no winch. You should have seen what was left of the sawyer's bar and chain, trapped in the felling kerf.



I have not seen a tree here yet that my winch would
not handle. I have air brakes and 23000 lbs of truck
gvw 33000 lbs but I weighed it and that is actual
weight. Pulling over a tree requires lots less than lifting 
the tree! I still usually will take some top weight off a leaner
but don't need too.


----------



## ropensaddle (May 30, 2008)

2dogs said:


> A stout wire rope and a winch or an anchored truck can really help and cut down the time needed to drop a small to medium size leaner. Around 28-30" DBH and you had better have a D6 or larger stuck onto that winch. Wire rope can break too, don't forget that. Fittings can fail, so can chokers. I would always start by placing wedges and then have the winch help pull it over, unless the tree is only a foot or so in diameter.
> 
> Reading the tree and wedging are basic skills everyone who falls a tree needs. I'm not talking about standing up a leaner, just basic falling. If in doubt call a pro.
> 
> BTW go to youtube.com and key in tree falling accidents or tree oops, or some similar key words and prepare to be entertained



Hmmm I have fell many trees with over 50dbh never had a problem
with my winch but many with wedges,and even rope, if I attempt
big wood it is always with my winch.


----------



## SawTroll (May 30, 2008)

smokechase II said:


> A minor scam out west is the use of the Humboldt to leave a 'short stump'.
> 
> The way this is legally complied with is any portion of the stump being within ____" of the ground. The bottom of the face meets whatever this requirement is locally, even though most of the stump is above or well above that height.
> 
> ...



Even I use a Humbolt in such cases, to not waste wood.....


----------



## Marc (May 30, 2008)

ropensaddle said:


> I have not seen a tree here yet that my winch would
> not handle. I have air brakes and 23000 lbs of truck
> gvw 33000 lbs but I weighed it and that is actual
> weight. Pulling over a tree requires lots less than lifting
> ...



And of course, weight isn't everything. Traction plays a big part, proportionally speaking, depending on the angle of the line tying it to the tree. Of course, weight also comes into play in determining traction, and they're all kind of inter-related.

I was fairly amazed with what we could pull over with our Massey Ferguson 85 (~62 hp, 8000 lb tractor with tires loaded). The gearing and torque of the engine, combined with the foot print and tread depth of the ag tires on the rear wheels, and it does a number on the small trees we've pulled with it... one actually I jumped the gun on, a ~1.5 ft dbh spruce and ended up with a 2 inch hinge. Probably didn't even need much of a relief cut and the tractor could've just pulled the tree over on it's own...


----------



## redprospector (May 30, 2008)

When I have to pull a tree over, I use another tree as an anchor point. Wire rope, and a rather large "come-a-long". I wouldn't want my truck (or tractor) ending up on utube. 

Andy


----------



## Marc (May 30, 2008)

redprospector said:


> When I have to pull a tree over, I use another tree as an anchor point. Wire rope, and a rather large "come-a-long". I wouldn't want my truck (or tractor) ending up on utube.
> 
> Andy



That's why I never film it of course....


----------



## KiwiTreeSteve (May 30, 2008)

im of the understanding that 1/3 to 1/4 is all that is normaly required, howver on a back leaning tree, or a tree that has lost its crown a a scarf of 1/4 to 1/2 is a good practice to adjust for the lean or loss of crown weight. 

i ALWAYS use wedges, to direct the fall, also a correct amount of hinge wood ( Approx 1/10th of tree diameter) variable each side depending on the lean.

when it requires you to pull the tree down a, simple 4 to 1 rigging set up, with prussiks works very well, and im a fan of this, 10 min to set up = professional and controlled fell. 

however im always keen to hear if im useng bad practices, and open to any suggestions

thanks.


'You have to touch and tree, and feel it" Shigo


----------



## ropensaddle (May 30, 2008)

Marc said:


> And of course, weight isn't everything. Traction plays a big part, proportionally speaking, depending on the angle of the line tying it to the tree. Of course, weight also comes into play in determining traction, and they're all kind of inter-related.
> 
> I was fairly amazed with what we could pull over with our Massey Ferguson 85 (~62 hp, 8000 lb tractor with tires loaded). The gearing and torque of the engine, combined with the foot print and tread depth of the ag tires on the rear wheels, and it does a number on the small trees we've pulled with it... one actually I jumped the gun on, a ~1.5 ft dbh spruce and ended up with a 2 inch hinge. Probably didn't even need much of a relief cut and the tractor could've just pulled the tree over on it's own...



That is the problem with pulling with a tractor or truck not steady
and easily wrong timing. The winch is steady and with two speeds
and faster if you gas it, it is awesome and I trust it over any groundy.


----------



## ropensaddle (May 30, 2008)

My set up you would have to see in action to see its performance!
A pto winch is the best tool a man can get. I will start by putting
it up twenty foot and freespooling to back to a safe distance and
set air brakes on my bucket. Next I engage winch usually in low 
to reel in access line and then kill the truck pto in gear. I then
cut notch and make kerfs and stop saw. Now I get in bucket
start in gear and tighten until I see a little shake or the top
move and kill in gear again. Now I am ready to start my backcut
and very seldom and only on huge trees do I have to even get 
any more pull. If I am getting within two inches of henge and not
seeing movement or gap widening, I have my wife start it and bump
it a little it starts to move and I cut a little more and motion her to pull
this works like a champ!


----------



## ClimbinArbor (May 30, 2008)

tell you what rope. my old lady needs one of them. ill send you the three mulberry removals ive got this week for em!


----------



## ropensaddle (May 30, 2008)

ClimbinArbor said:


> tell you what rope. my old lady needs one of them. ill send you the three mulberry removals ive got this week for em!



Ehhhh I may be dumb but I ain't stupid and would not want to cheat a buddy like that


----------



## ClimbinArbor (May 30, 2008)

dern it. i was gonna let you do it for free too....


----------



## Burvol (May 30, 2008)

KiwiTreeSteve said:


> im of the understanding that 1/3 to 1/4 is all that is normaly required, howver on a back leaning tree, or a tree that has lost its crown a a scarf of 1/4 to 1/2 is a good practice to adjust for the lean or loss of crown weight.
> 
> i ALWAYS use wedges, to direct the fall, also a correct amount of hinge wood ( Approx 1/10th of tree diameter) variable each side depending on the lean.
> 
> ...



Are you guys logging white pine down there?


----------



## HolmenTree (Jun 3, 2008)

I thought I would add my 2 cents to this thread. My tree service is at the busiest time of the year right now, but have found some time to write this.
I estimate in my life time I have felled over 2 million trees, but when I switched from logging to running an urban tree service [where the good money is made] about 10 years ago,it took a city slicker arborist from Arbormaster to teach me some good proven techniques.
Everyone gets information on making a notch,backcut etc.from books which have evolved or revolved around the forest industry. The 1/3 notch goes back 100+ years. Notches were designed by the forest industry to reduce waste for the lumber making process. When falling blocks of forests or plantations the average lean of trees is towards the south east [anywhere on earth north of the equator],so felling in this field is fairly straight forward.

Now learn a little tree biology. Softwood trees support themselves with compression wood. Hardwood trees use tension wood for anchor support. Heartwood is not strong hingewood , only the sapwood offers strong hingewood. There is more sapwood in the hingewood of a 1/4 notch then in a 1/2 notch. Little things like these are big things when you are felling trees in an urban enviroment around houses and powerlines. Learn the stick trick technique to accurately estimate the height and length of a trees felling bed.Get a pull line up high enough in a big tree with your Bigshot and you can direct it anywhere with a Masdam rope come along. A 2 ft carpenters square seated in the apex of your notch is much more accurate then your saws felling sights for those really tight felling spots.

I could go on and on this subject. But my best advice is break away from the old forest industry standards ,learn a little from the arboriculture sector. A seasoned experienced chainsaw logger with his excellent body mechanics in chainsaw operation,knowledge of saw maintenence and endurance to get the job done would be one hell of a woodcutter if he also became a certified arborist or even just took a few Arbormaster courses in precision felling and cutting techniques. And don't forget about those 2 little super strong pieces of sapwood in your hingewood.


----------



## smokechase II (Jun 4, 2008)

*sapwood*

"*only the sapwood offers strong hingewood*."

This has a huge sliding scale. Strength here is a variable related to species, live wood moisture (drought influence - drier sapwood becomes heartwood in effect and looses strength), tree age, growth ring size etc. {Also how low one cuts on a live tree. The wood on any given tree is denser and stronger the lower one goes on the stump.}

Why not go with a 1/8th notch and get more sapwood that way than a 1/4 notch? That would result in just plain sapwood hinges on most trees.

Assuming the same hinge width, which the cutter can choose to alter of course, as the face comes closer to 1/2 there is more total wood in the hinge.
In stronger species in good health there is plenty of strength in heartwood to hold a hinge for the time needed to directionally control its fall.

In dead (and severe drought trees with live moisture between 80-120%) there is little strength in either of the woods. 'With the lean' is not just the greatly preferred option it can be the only option far more often than with the same tree alive or healthy. 

When both sapwood and heartwood are substantially dried in dead trees there is no strength discussion. Think more limitations on what the cutter can do with a snag than a tree and that is based primarily on dryer woods being weaker, (even though the weights above are reduced and that can allow for easier wedging). Think thicker hinges and deeper faces. (If the wood strength isn't there to hold any hinge to the ground, understand that through experience before your first cut, then the knowledge that the hingewood is gone at 35-50% of the fall can help one predict if that is acceptable.)


----------



## smokechase II (Jun 4, 2008)

*support*

"*Softwood trees support themselves with compression wood. Hardwood trees use tension wood for anchor support."*

Did you mean to say: 'Softwood trees support themselves primarily with compression wood. Hardwood trees primarily use tension wood for anchor support.'

--------------

I thought they each used both.


----------



## HolmenTree (Jun 7, 2008)

Smokechase sorry I didn't explain myself a little better there in my last post, I didn't mean for you or anyone else to blow a head gasket responding to it. Like I said earlier I could go on and on about notches and hingewood , but the way this thread was going I didn't think it was needed anyway, but it sure turned your light bulb on upstairs though eh?

Willard


----------



## ericjeeper (Jun 7, 2008)

*smile*

2,000,000 trees felled. If you average that out to even one minute per tree. working 24 hours a day round the clock never taking a break. That would be 1388 days. That is almost 4 years. Or if working a 40 hour week. cutting one a minute with no breaks that is 16 years.
I think you might be stretching the truth a little.


----------



## HolmenTree (Jun 7, 2008)

ericjeeper said:


> 2,000,000 trees felled. If you average that out to even one minute per tree. working 24 hours a day round the clock never taking a break. That would be 1388 days. That is almost 4 years. Or if working a 40 hour week. cutting one a minute with no breaks that is 16 years.
> I think you might be stretching the truth a little.



Believe me I've done it .In 20 years working as a full time piecework faller,working 8 hours a day ,5 days a week ,10-11 months a year ,in 10" average dia. wood ,some alot smaller ,some alot bigger. Easy 1 a minute.Do the math!!
And thats just from 1974 to 1994. I have been running my own tree service ever since. I guess to a hourly paid window installater guy that would be hard to grasp eh.

Willard


----------



## Gologit (Jun 7, 2008)

HolmenTree said:


> Believe me I've done it .In 20 years working as a full time piecework faller,working 8 hours a day ,5 days a week ,10-11 months a year ,in 10" average dia. wood ,some alot smaller ,some alot bigger. Easy 1 a minute.Do the math!!
> And thats just from 1974 to 1994. I have been running my own tree service ever since.
> 
> Willard



10" diameter wood? Son, you're not logging...you're weed-eating.


----------



## Cedarkerf (Jun 7, 2008)

Gologit said:


> 10" diameter wood? Son, you're not logging...you're weed-eating.



:hmm3grin2orange:


----------



## Haywire Haywood (Jun 7, 2008)

Gologit said:


> 10" diameter wood? Son, you're not logging...you're weed-eating.



I'm outta rep Bob.. but that was a good one. :hmm3grin2orange: 

Ian


----------



## HolmenTree (Jun 7, 2008)

500 trees a day ,limbed and topped at 40-60ft.length average,from 40 below with 2feet of snow, to 100 above in summer. And helping my skidder operator choke it up to put it in the pile would have you PNW boys crying home for mama.

HAHA
Willard


----------



## raycarr (Jun 7, 2008)

I just sprayed Mountain Dew all over....LOL

Gas or electric? If electric, how long a cord was used?
What kind string was used?
Auto feed, or was it a bump feed, bump feed takes more time.

Ray


----------



## 2dogs (Jun 7, 2008)

Gologit said:


> 10" diameter wood? Son, you're not logging...you're weed-eating.



Ppffhht! Cough, aw crud now I gotta clean the keyboard again. My dog thinks I'm having a seizure.

2,000,000 trees in 20 years works out to 100,000 trees per year. That means 2,000 trees a week for 50 weeks. That means 400 trees per day. Wow! That means 50 trees per hour! You are a stud! You should have your own series on History. Heck you have to be a multi millionaire by now just by gross scale.


----------



## SRT-Tech (Jun 7, 2008)

opcorn:


----------



## smokechase II (Jun 8, 2008)

*Notches and hingewood*

*"Smokechase sorry I didn't explain myself a little better there in my last post, I didn't mean for you or anyone else to blow a head gasket responding to it. Like I said earlier I could go on and on about notches and hingewood , but the way this thread was going I didn't think it was needed anyway, but it sure turned your light bulb on upstairs though eh?"*

--------------

Sorry for the excitement.
But do go on about notches and hingewood.
Specifically:
Did you mean to say: 'Softwood trees support themselves primarily with compression wood. Hardwood trees primarily use tension wood for anchor support?'
I'm not sure if this is a simple grammar correction/omission or a philosophical wood matrix doctoral paper that is revolutionary and like Einstein’s theory of relativity, where there were no prior scholarly works to cite, hence it stands alone.

------------------

In any case your tree size experience fits well in my previous thesis in this thread that shallow faces are generally acceptable when there is less force to overcome. See post 59; slide two.

-----------------

In regard to weed eating and falling.
A 10 inch tree presents plenty of difficulty and threat to life span. So I regret others disparaging remarks about size mattering.


----------



## smokechase II (Jun 8, 2008)

*Math and the Sierra Club*

*[I"2,000,000 trees in 20 years works out to 100,000 trees per year. That means 2,000 trees a week for 50 weeks. That means 400 trees per day. Wow! That means 50 trees per hour! You are a stud! You should have your own series on History. Heck you have to be a multi millionaire by now just by gross scale."

Allowing for Credit hours.
No holidays and a boy to fill the saw and file the back-up saw.
Inclusion of 1" diameter saplings, (The small end was not specified).
Domino falling, (The number of trees felled by one backcut was not specified).


-----------------

In any case, I believe that while my trees dropped does not even remotely reach 100,000. My total boomage is of some merit.

I wish to boldly state, realizing full well that this will generate some new level of calculus on this thread, that my total boomage is 1 x 10 (23rd) decibels. Perhaps you've heard of my work?*


----------



## raycarr (Jun 8, 2008)

Quote from Smoke'"
I wish to boldly state, realizing full well that this will generate some new level of calculus on this thread, that my total boomage is 1 x 10 (23rd) decibels. Perhaps you've heard of my work?"

Yes, I have heard it, ears still ringing.

Ray


----------



## Lakeside53 (Jun 8, 2008)

*what?*

sorry, couldn't resist...:greenchainsaw:


----------



## 2dogs (Jun 8, 2008)

smokechase II said:


> *[I"2,000,000 trees in 20 years works out to 100,000 trees per year. That means 2,000 trees a week for 50 weeks. That means 400 trees per day. Wow! That means 50 trees per hour! You are a stud! You should have your own series on History. Heck you have to be a multi millionaire by now just by gross scale."
> 
> Allowing for Credit hours.
> No holidays and a boy to fill the saw and file the back-up saw.
> ...


*

Yes I have heard of your boomage though I spell it bit differently.  :spam:

I think I have seen a video of you domino falling 1" trees, point of entry. Very dangerous! Please be careful so you can keep posting here.*


----------



## raycarr (Jun 8, 2008)

Funny, I played with the old McCulloch today, thing gets me through plugs and muffs.....HUH?


----------



## sperho (Jun 8, 2008)

HolmenTree = Paul Bunyan


----------



## teacherman (Jun 8, 2008)

2 million, thassa lotta trees, yessir. I'm surprised the Sierra Club hasn't taken out a contract on you!:greenchainsaw:


----------



## pbtree (Jun 8, 2008)

Gologit said:


> Yup...gotta agree. Ekka, with his experience and knowledge, could have helped this guy. Instead, he chose to display his immaturity and shameful lack of humanity.
> 
> Hey Ekka...if the guy has a legitimate question, why not just answer it? If he argues with you or rejects your advice or turns out to be a cretin then you can whack him around a bit. Until then let's give him the benefit of the doubt.


+1


----------



## Haywire Haywood (Jun 8, 2008)

sperho said:


> HolmenTree = Paul Bunyan



Hey, I've been there... that's outside a cheesy amusement park-like ride through the trees in N Cali. It's called "Trees of Mystery". We didn't go on the ride but we did eat at an equally cheesy restaurant across the street called The Forest Cafe. Horrible food. http://www.treesofmystery.net/

Ian


----------



## raycarr (Jun 8, 2008)

They finally fixed Babe's head, it fell off last year, very sad sight indeed.

Haywire, did you enjoy the drive between Crescent City and Eureka? That is, in my little opinion, the best cruise in our area.

Ray


----------



## ZeroJunk (Jun 8, 2008)

No big deal. Wilt Chamberlain slept with 20,000 women.

The direction that most of the trees I cut are going to fall is obvious. Notching can change it only a few degrees to perhaps get it in a place that's easier to work. My notching is more to keep the tree from breaking off. If the direction is critical I take a big tractor and pull it down or take the loader and push it down depending on the size and lean of the tree. If I am pushing it with a loader I don't notch it at all. Then, I've only cut a few hundred trees.


----------



## Burvol (Jun 8, 2008)

HolmenTree said:


> 500 trees a day ,limbed and topped at 40-60ft.length average,from 40 below with 2feet of snow, to 100 above in summer. And helping my skidder operator choke it up to put it in the pile would have you PNW boys crying home for mama.
> 
> HAHA
> Willard



Don't open the PNW stuff dude...I'll be forced to pull out the "America Junior" crap, and I am friends with some good Canadians, and like some others on here, but please don't make us come down on you. Obviously you've never met real hard working cutters, they have no need to brag, they are just known as being bad ass. Also, you can easily burn the woods down when it's above 100 and your still cutting. Hmm...Plus that lingo, "pile" either means crap wood or you be loggin' tree lengths alright. We call them a "deck" here, as do many places that harvest TIMBER.


----------



## Haywire Haywood (Jun 8, 2008)

raycarr said:


> Haywire, did you enjoy the drive between Crescent City and Eureka? That is, in my little opinion, the best cruise in our area.
> 
> Ray



We turned around about 10 miles south of Klamath. We hit the Redwoods right around there, turned back north and headed for Crater Lake. We stayed in Crescent city the night before. What a hole. Glad I don't live there. The Redwoods were a humbling experience. We saw a sign that had a quote from long ago. I forget the exact wording but the gist of it was, "Even the biggest A-hole becomes quietly respectful in the presence of these ancient trees." Wish I remembered exactly what it said. I think they used the word "irreverent".

Ian


----------



## Gologit (Jun 8, 2008)

*Hey, Ray Carr*



Haywire Haywood said:


> We stayed in Crescent city the night before. What a hole. Glad I don't live there.
> 
> Ian



Sounds like you better get the Del Norte County Chamber of Commerce on the ball. Can't have these tourists from Kentucky going home with bad impressions of your county seat.

Maybe next time you could arrange a tour of Pelican Bay for him.  

Besides...the real cool people in Del Norte live in Gasquet.


----------



## 2dogs (Jun 8, 2008)

ZeroJunk said:


> No big deal. Wilt Chamberlain slept with 20,000 women.
> 
> The direction that most of the trees I cut are going to fall is obvious. Notching can change it only a few degrees to perhaps get it in a place that's easier to work. My notching is more to keep the tree from breaking off. If the direction is critical I take a big tractor and pull it down or take the loader and push it down depending on the size and lean of the tree. If I am pushing it with a loader I don't notch it at all. Then, I've only cut a few hundred trees.



Huh? Do you have no trees that grow straight from the ground up? I am sorry but you can fall the typical tree in any direction you want to.


----------



## ZeroJunk (Jun 8, 2008)

> Huh? Do you have no trees that grow straight from the ground up? I am sorry but you can fall the typical tree in any direction you want to.



Don't try to make this one size fits all. I have spent a lot of time in the west hunting and see the way the conifers grow. For the most part that is not the case here. A lot of what I cut is on the edge of pastures and 60% of the weight is on one side and they are leaning several degrees out. if you don't want them to go that way you had better have something with some serious weight or a lot of leverage working against it.You are kidding yourself if you think notching and wedging will make it go the other way. I can post some pictures if you are really interested.


----------



## smokechase II (Jun 8, 2008)

*listening*

I thought 2dogs had a good point until I read:

*"Don't try to make this one size fits all. I have spent a lot of time in the west hunting and see the way the conifers grow. For the most part that is not the case here. A lot of what I cut is on the edge of pastures and 60% of the weight is on one side and they are leaning several degrees out."*

Conifers are generally much easier. The edge of openings means no natural pruning on the sunny side.
Understood.


----------



## HolmenTree (Jun 8, 2008)

Gologit said:


> 10" diameter wood? Son, you're not logging...you're weed-eating.



This thread is like a good day of walleye fishing, find a good hole and you get lots of fight. I thought that 2,000,000 tree would get some response, but I stand by it. I'll admit I took offense to "weed eating not logging" and made some unacceptable remarks to the pros in the PNW because thats where the weed remark originated. But here in northern Manitoba our 10" black and white spruce is not a weed. These 80-100 year old trees have some of the strongest long softwood fiber in the world. Our pulpmill here makes paper so strong that their customers from around the world use it for making thin strong pages for bibles but the big market is for cement bags and the lower grade is used for dogfood bags ,and the mill can't make it fast enough.While newsprint mills are shut down ours has been booming since it opened in 1969.


----------



## Burvol (Jun 8, 2008)

ZeroJunk said:


> Don't try to make this one size fits all. I have spent a lot of time in the west hunting and see the way the conifers grow. For the most part that is not the case here. A lot of what I cut is on the edge of pastures and 60% of the weight is on one side and they are leaning several degrees out. if you don't want them to go that way you had better have something with some serious weight or a lot of leverage working against it.You are kidding yourself if you think notching and wedging will make it go the other way. I can post some pictures if you are really interested.



No, it's called waste your entire day on three trees, trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, just let em' rip.


----------



## smokechase II (Jun 8, 2008)

*Photos officially requested*

*ZeroJunk*, let's have a picture 6 pak of some easy to do hardwoods.


----------



## smokechase II (Jun 8, 2008)

*Goggle earth requested*

Holmentree:

Starting with 100 trees / acre, just for discussion, dividing that into 2,000,000 we arrive at 20,000 acres of deforestation.
That would be just over 31 sections of land. An area three miles by ten miles and a couple months extra thrown in.

With the scale of this massive deforestation rather than ask for a few photos, could you give us a Goggle Earth area to go to for verification?

Perhaps a Sierra Club web page pleading for the Canadian Parliament, (sorry for the edit), to change the law to prevent this in the future?
A Greenpeace logo with a circle and slash through your saw(s)?

Thanks


********************

My name is Bill, _(Hello Bill - Hi Bill - Howdy)_ and I have problems with accurately recounting events. Recently I told a tall tale about how much noise I have generated falling trees. I'm here to back off and make my stories believable.

(psst. Holmen. It's your turn.)


----------



## Gologit (Jun 8, 2008)

smokechase II said:


> Holmentree:
> 
> Starting with 100 trees / acre, just for discussion, dividing that into 2,000,000 we arrive at 20,000 acres of deforestation.
> That would be just over 31 sections of land. An area three miles by ten miles and a couple months extra thrown in.
> ...



ROFLMAO...good post.


----------



## ZeroJunk (Jun 8, 2008)

Here are some out in my pasture. the first one is probably the best example because you can pick the trunk out. The next is pretty much the same. They are about 36 inches in diameter and would heat my house for a year.

I cut one about like this that had been hit by lightning a few weeks ago. it had so much stress from leaning that about 1/3 of the way through I heard it starting to crack. I backed off and watched as it broke and fell.You really don't know how far to notch these because if you get in there to far, chances are you'll lose a bar in the deal.

Hard to tell from a photo, the last tree on the right is 9 feet. About as big as you see them. I don't have anything to cut it with and couldn't split it up if I did.


----------



## 2dogs (Jun 8, 2008)

ZeroJunk said:


> Don't try to make this one size fits all. I have spent a lot of time in the west hunting and see the way the conifers grow. For the most part that is not the case here. A lot of what I cut is on the edge of pastures and 60% of the weight is on one side and they are leaning several degrees out. if you don't want them to go that way you had better have something with some serious weight or a lot of leverage working against it.You are kidding yourself if you think notching and wedging will make it go the other way. I can post some pictures if you are really interested.



Reread my post. A tree growing on the edge of a clearing where one side has full sun and the other side competes with other trees is not a typical straight growing tree. I agree with the need for serious weight when it comes to pulling a large branching tree like you (and I) deal with on a regular basis.


----------



## teacherman (Jun 8, 2008)

ZeroJunk said:


> Here are some out in my pasture. the first one is probably the best example because you can pick the trunk out. The next is pretty much the same. They are about 36 inches in diameter and would heat my house for a year.
> 
> I cut one about like this that had been hit by lightning a few weeks ago. it had so much stress from leaning that about 1/3 of the way through I heard it starting to crack. I backed off and watched as it broke and fell.You really don't know how far to notch these because if you get in there to far, chances are you'll lose a bar in the deal.
> 
> Hard to tell from a photo, the last tree on the right is 9 feet. About as big as you see them. I don't have anything to cut it with and couldn't split it up if I did.



Nice pasture and trees! Looks like a job for the 084 (if you actually want to remove it) 

What kind of trees are they? We get a few decent sized oak, walnut and hackberry trees around here, but nothing 9 feet in diameter! Must be well over 100 years old.


----------



## ZeroJunk (Jun 8, 2008)

> What kind of trees are they?



They are southern red oaks. I also have a few northern red oaks. This place was select cut 60 years ago, but they left the poplars and I have some of those that are huge. They actually do grow straight up like a pine or fir.
Some of the oaks were left where the old houses stood. Who knows how old they are.


----------



## Haywire Haywood (Jun 8, 2008)

All you need is a long misery whip and an ax with the neck steam bent so that you can swing straight and still notch it out without standing at a weird angle to the notch.

Ian


----------



## 2dogs (Jun 8, 2008)

Yeah I forgot to mention that a 9' diameter tree is awsome. I have never cut a tree that big, good luck with it.


----------



## ZeroJunk (Jun 8, 2008)

I'm not going to cut it. It's for sitting under and drinking beer.


----------



## HolmenTree (Jun 8, 2008)

smokechase II said:


> *[I"2,000,000 trees in 20 years works out to 100,000 trees per year. That means 2,000 trees a week for 50 weeks. That means 400 trees per day. Wow! That means 50 trees per hour! You are a stud! You should have your own series on History. Heck you have to be a multi millionaire by now just by gross scale."
> 
> Allowing for Credit hours.
> No holidays and a boy to fill the saw and file the back-up saw.
> ...


*

Well I guess I better explain our way of logging here in central Canada or the way it used to be in the good old days before full mechanicalized harvesting 24 hrs a day. Unlike the west coast here in central northern Manitoba it is table top flat ground, dry sunny cold winters with 2 feet max dry snow .Warm to hot summers with not much rain but lots of moisture in the ground from our abundent lakes and swamps. Mostly spruce and pine with hardwood sparsely mixed in.Everything harvested here is still old growth,trees close to each other with limbs only near the top. 10" to 16" dbh average 50-75ft tall, with the biggest spruce being 5ft dbh 120ft tall.All this old growth in an area greater then all of Wash.,Oregon and California put together.[ look at the map] The company I worked for then was owned by the Manitoba government and the only company in all this area since 1969.

All the timber was harvested by 2 man cut & skid crews,1 faller,1 skidder operator x about 12 crews in 5 camps[60 crews].plus several independent contractors. When the company started the big paper and lumbermill in 1969 they couldn't get good reliable production out of the local loggers because they the locals only cut a little for small sawmills. So the company brought in some of the best French Canadian foremens , superintendents and loggers from Quebec where forestry was always big time and they were running out of old growth if not already were well into their 2nd growth. When the Frenchmen first came the company production standard was each 2 man crew had to produce 20 cords [50 cubic meters] in a 8 hr day, the Frenchmen were easily doubling that.This meant felling,limbing&topping at 3 1/2" then skidding the tree length to a pile at the landing. Clarke Ranger, Timberjack and Cat skidders were mainly used. Me and my 2 older brothers learned quickly from the methods of the Frenchmen. Work as a team, cut your stumps low, trees always felled straight ,butts up to a 1/2 treelength back from each other,then the skidder backblades the butts even in a straight line back blading the limbs as he goes along. the faller cuts off the side& bottom limbs and tops then helps the skidder operator choke up the trees and then the cycle starts over again. In the winter limbing was all done by the skidder ,only the tops had to be cut. The average wind came from the northwest and the trees lean towards the southeast.Cut your strips[block] face in a straight line from west to east, working it back to the north,this way the felled timber is always at an angle to the face allowing easier skidding. The ground is always flat making operating that much easier. We took no coffee breaks, only 1/2 hr for lunch. This is high production piecework cut & skid.In the late 1980s my partner and I could produce as much as 300 cords[750 cub.meters]in a 40 hr week ,running a Stihl 064 20"and a Clarke Ranger 666 skidder.We also ran Stihl 044-18", Jonsered 670-18" and Husky 266-18". We were very fit athletes . Every movement we did at work was not wasted. Yes we made good money. PNW logging is another total different league of logging with the rough terrain and much larger and scattered timber with undergrowth that can stop a tank.These 2 worlds are totally different.All the hardwood in our manitoba operations was a weed,if they were in the way they were just felled and left adding to the extra thousands of trees a year we had to cut. Any big backleaners were cut then the skidder would push it over with its arch and proceed to backblade it. We had a very efficent system and the saws and skidders were getting faster and more powerfull every year.We peaked out around 1994,then the company wanted 24 hr stump to dump contractors running processors, feller bunchers,grapple skidders and forwarders. They laid us off and thats what they got.
Yes its hard for other loggers to understand how someone can cut 2 million trees with a powersaw in 20 years. Especially if they are in rough terrain with oversize timber. Or if they are always burnt out from working too much with no days off and spinning their wheels and getting little wood into their piles.But I think it all boils down to, if you learn to log right in the first place and not be scared to push your self you can make alot of money. I am proud to be a high baller and not scared to give er s##t.

Willard:greenchainsaw:*


----------



## clearance (Jun 8, 2008)

There you have it. Good enough explanation for me. When people from Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, or pretty well anywhere else in Canada talk about trees, the usual response is "You guys have trees out there?"

We have the big trees here, even the second growth can be over 4' dbh.

Anyways, back to the question, it has been explained well here, enough. Cut how you want, you have been told how to do it properly by pros, so, its up to you.


----------



## HolmenTree (Jun 8, 2008)

smokechase II said:


> Holmentree:
> 
> Starting with 100 trees / acre, just for discussion, dividing that into 2,000,000 we arrive at 20,000 acres of deforestation.
> That would be just over 31 sections of land. An area three miles by ten miles and a couple months extra thrown in.
> ...



You know I was just seriously getting ready to talk with you about notches and hingewood but now I see you are either completely nuts or your smoking too much weed.

Willard


----------



## sperho (Jun 8, 2008)

HolmenTree-

With your methodology, you probably busted some major rump up there, but c'mon. 2,000,000 in 20 years is an exaggeration.

2,000,000/20 = 100,000/year
100,000/260 = 384/day
384/8 = 48/hour
48/60 = ~1 per minute

People will know you by tall tales, but I guess that's OK.


----------



## ZeroJunk (Jun 8, 2008)

Reminds me of when I told a man that I had caught a 20 pound largemouth.

The other man said that was nothing. He hung a lantern off of a sunk pirate ship and when he pulled it out of the water it was still burning. But, he said if I would take a few pounds off of that bass he would put the light out on the lantern.


----------



## HolmenTree (Jun 8, 2008)

sperho said:


> HolmenTree-
> 
> With your methodology, you probably busted some major rump up there, but c'mon. 2,000,000 in 20 years is an exaggeration.
> 
> ...



Come on guys there has got to be some other high ball loggers out there on this site who can back my claim. Got to be someone from the midwest or great lakes areas who has done this. 

Willard


----------



## Haywire Haywood (Jun 8, 2008)

I used to be high ball, but I got old and just tonight almost stepped on them in the shower.

Ian


----------



## smokechase II (Jun 8, 2008)

*Math still rules*

*"Smokechase sorry I didn't explain myself a little better there in my last post, I didn't mean for you or anyone else to blow a head gasket responding to it. Like I said earlier I could go on and on about notches and hingewood, but the way this thread was going I didn't think it was needed anyway, but it sure turned your light bulb on upstairs though eh?"*

Look, you never intended to respond to my questions. Being the first to take a toke. I stated opinions on the 1/3rd diameter issue and asked questions and you set the "blow a head gasket" tone. As ye post so shall ye reap.

-------------------

I still don't believe a cutter could do 440 trees a day for twenty years, (10 months of 5 day work weeks to get to 1.936 million trees). Even under the easiest of small tree flat ground conditions where the tree is at least partly trimmed by the skidder.

--------------------

By your opening post you did something approaching that level of production before the superior training you received later from the arbormaster. 

--------------------

In the spirit of detente I will concede that you have cut more trees than anyone I've ever met. (The Goggle Earth resolution for remote Canada wouldn't show anything anyway.)

--------------------

I would like you to respond to the following previously asked question:

1) "*Why not go with a 1/8th notch and get more sapwood that way than a 1/4 notch? That would result in just plain sapwood hinges on most trees."*
Aside from oblong shaped trees, so assuming circular generally for this point, if more sapwood is better why not go with complete sapwood hinges? My point with this question was not to actually promote this 1/8th face but to point out logically that the face is not just to set the hinge width, but to provide the initial part of the release and it can also set the fulcrum better for superior leverage on larger trees.


----------



## stihl 440 (Jun 8, 2008)

*logging*

OK...350 sum trees is hard for a feller buncher to do in a day....let alone a person with a saw. Around here we are preety fast paced in my book......I and the other loggers around here get about 75 trees in a day, that's average on a good day. I can cut more if it's just felling small DBH trees.......but normally i'm cutting and skidding. BTW....we work 10 hr days............. And at the end of a day like that you're whooped............:greenchainsaw:


----------



## smokechase II (Jun 9, 2008)

*Other questions*

*"Notches were designed by the forest industry to reduce waste for the lumber making process. When falling blocks of forests or plantations the average lean of trees is towards the south east [anywhere on earth north of the equator],so felling in this field is fairly straight forward."*

---------------

Notches were designed to get a tree to go over in a specific direction. Different notches came later that reduced waste in specific settings.

*********

North of the equator in the PNW the general lean is most often downhill. Your blanket statement about our blocks is not accurate. There are a variety of different species on different slope scenarios where this can vary.

However I'm curious as to the explanation as to why trees lean to the SE in yours and other locations. Plants lean toward the sun and there are more clouds in the afternoon making the morning sun the most dominate. Just speculating and not sure why that SE thing would be.


----------



## sperho (Jun 9, 2008)

HolmenTree said:


> Come on guys there has got to be some other high ball loggers out there on this site who can back my claim. Got to be someone from the midwest or great lakes areas who has done this.
> 
> Willard



Eat crow and move on with respect, it's simple. A tree per minute 8 hours straight all day every day? :spam:  

:monkey:


----------



## raycarr (Jun 9, 2008)

I would never call myself an expert, but I do know one, my uncle Randy,he has 15 years of Northern CA expirience. I showed him this thread, he read the whole thing, laughed through most of it, then slapped the back of my head for being rude. 
Ok, he says that going atleast one full third for a facecut, is good, anything less could cause problems. Then pointed out to me that all trees are different, there is no hard and fast rule when falling timber. I sat and looked at a bunch of old photos, it appeared to me that most of the cuts I saw were close to 45%, leaving 5-10% hinge wood. There were also some facecuts that were specialized for the really big trees, it was hard to tell just how much wood was removed, from the blocks and chunks on the ground, I'm guessing that a whole bunch of cutting was involved. His comments on this thread...Smoke's analysis is as sharp as his wit, farmers should stick to the plow, 2 million trees in 20 years sounds like a corn harvest, it's not the number of trees felled, it's the boardfootage that is important.
I have heavily:censored: editted this, sometimes he goes too :censored: far, and doesn't care who hears :censored: him.

Ray


----------



## ZeroJunk (Jun 9, 2008)

> farmers should stick to the plow




LOL Bring your little pine/fir tree sawing uncle over here and I'll drink beer and laugh at him while he tries to make most of these old red oaks go anywhere they weren't going to go to start with.


----------



## raycarr (Jun 9, 2008)

ZeroJunk said:


> LOL Bring your little pine/fir tree sawing uncle over here and I'll drink beer and laugh at him while he tries to make most of these old red oaks go anywhere they weren't going to go to start with.




Your'e pretty funny, the man dropped old growth Redwoods in his day, for those few who know him, they will find your comments hilarious.

'Junk, better stick to what you know.

Ray


----------



## ZeroJunk (Jun 9, 2008)

> the man dropped old growth Redwoods in his day



Notice, I didn't offer commentary about dropping old growth Redwoods.

But, I can tell him about old red oaks and center of gravity. A straight up oak tree is a rare treat. And if anybody thinks you are going to effect them more than a few degrees by notching when the are several thousand pounds loaded to one side, you are just nuts. Farmer or arborist extraordinaire.

Maybe he should also limit his comments to what he knows.


----------



## HolmenTree (Jun 9, 2008)

Hello gents, I got customers waiting for me ,but they can wait.

Smokechase ,I gotta apologize for the headgasket thing and then the weed comment,too much coffee in the am lately has made me a little edgy.

We will talk notches and hingewood a bit later on. Just to add to my longwinded novel of Manitoba logging .I have to add that we all like to brag about our log cutting abilities and production in the woods, but alot of the time I was cutting for the company I was cutting 4-6" timber and getting scaled for only 25-30ft length.With these trees[very close together] I was just slashing one shallow cut for a notch cut the backcut clean thru and pitching them into bunches before they hit the ground. 1 choker around about 5 trees.[20 chokers on skidder] We never had to skid over 500 ft., up to 3 loads an hour.Do the math. The best ever we did in this smallwood was 150 cords in 40 hr, alot of trees here but not much cordage.I was running a Madsenized 034& 044 with 16" bar/chain.

Get ahold of Sam Madsen at Madsens ,he can vouch for me. Or get ahold of Fred Whyte president of Stihl USA .He hired me in 1989 to work for Stihl as technical services manager or Steve Meriam national sales &product development manager for Stihl USA ,he was then my branch manager. They can vouch for me, but they still may be a little hot under the collar for when I quit on them and went back to Manitoba to go back logging. Especialy when I was in the middle of a factory sawchain test. Fred always talked about the trees in northern Saskatchewan and Manitoba being as thick as the hair on a dogs back.

Willard Holmenopcorn:


----------



## Haywire Haywood (Jun 9, 2008)

The trees they are a shrinkin..... Coulda been a hit song a few years ago.


----------



## sperho (Jun 9, 2008)

HolmenTree said:


> alot of the time I was cutting for the company I was cutting 4-6" timber and getting scaled for only 25-30ft length.With these trees[very close together] I was just slashing one shallow cut for a notch cut the backcut clean thru and pitching them into bunches before they hit the ground.



Your 2 cents-worth of input originally began by you touting something along the lines of "I should know something about this topic because I've cut 2 million trees over the course of my career". Now, it turns out that you were in actuality, mostly brush cutting.

I'm actually entertained - keep filling us in on the details....


----------



## 2dogs (Jun 9, 2008)

HolmenTree said:


> Hello gents, I got customers waiting for me ,but they can wait.
> 
> Smokechase ,I gotta apologize for the headgasket thing and then the weed comment,too much coffee in the am lately has made me a little edgy.
> 
> ...




OK things are begining to make more sense. During a vegetation management project last year I probably cut 2,000 over 4-5 weeks. However they were from pencil size up to about 8-10 inches. One swipe with the saw might cut 40 "trees at once.

Sorry I jumped on you early. Lets here more.


----------



## Haywire Haywood (Jun 9, 2008)

2dogs said:


> One swipe with the saw might cut 40 "trees at once.



You were cutting 40 at a swipe and it still took you 4 or 5 weeks to cut 2000? Man, you were taking way too many potty breaks. That's only 50 swipes.. assuming you worked 40 hr weeks, you only took one swipe every 3.2 hours. YOU SLACKER! :hmm3grin2orange: :hmm3grin2orange: :hmm3grin2orange: 

Ian


----------



## 2dogs (Jun 9, 2008)

Haywire Haywood said:


> You were cutting 40 at a swipe and it still took you 4 or 5 weeks to cut 2000? Man, you were taking way too many potty breaks. That's only 50 swipes.. assuming you worked 40 hr weeks, you only took one swipe every 3.2 hours. YOU SLACKER! :hmm3grin2orange: :hmm3grin2orange: :hmm3grin2orange:
> 
> Ian



Hey I never said I could do math! Ok make that 10,000 trees over the course of the project. I'll take pics this year and post them here just for you. Troublemaker!


----------



## Ekka (Jun 9, 2008)

And the winner of this here pissing contest is the legendary man who uses no notch and can cut 4000 redwoods per hour!

LOL


----------



## Gologit (Jun 9, 2008)

HolmenTree said:


> Hello gents, I got customers waiting for me ,but they can wait.
> 
> Smokechase ,I gotta apologize for the headgasket thing and then the weed comment,too much coffee in the am lately has made me a little edgy.
> 
> ...



The BS Meter has red-lined.


----------



## Gologit (Jun 9, 2008)

2dogs said:


> Hey I never said I could do math! Ok make that 10,000 trees over the course of the project. I'll take pics this year and post them here just for you. Troublemaker!



Does spending all day to cut just one tree count? A couple of hours to fall out the busters and skid them out, an hour to ALAP the stumps, an hour or so to Cat up the bed, quite a bit of time gunning the face, and a whole bunch of time on the back cut jacking and wedging. One old growth redwood...and it saved out clear to the top. 

 I don't guess I'll ever get to 2 million trees that way.


----------



## sILlogger (Jun 9, 2008)

Gologit said:


> Does spending all day to cut just one tree count? A couple of hours to fall out the busters and skid them out, an hour to ALAP the stumps, an hour or so to Cat up the bed, quite a bit of time gunning the face, and a whole bunch of time on the back cut jacking and wedging. One old growth redwood...and it saved out clear to the top.
> 
> I don't guess I'll ever get to 2 million trees that way.



great post!! & I"m all out of rep!!

in no way can i even compare to cutting a tree like some of the redwoods...or using a tree jack(although i could use one sometimes) but i know what you are trying to say...in loggerworld(atleast from my experience)it is a balance of Quality of cutting and Quantity!! setting them down and saving them out-the bigger they are the more important(i know i don't cut "big" trees compared to the PNWer's...but we get some decent sized stuff around here...throw some forked limbs into the mix that will bust the log when they hit the ground and it changes things)

the only reason i can think of the keeping count of trees cut is for scale....and scale is all that matters!!

to me counting how many trees that you have cut in your career is about like keeping track of how many beers u drink in a night-so you can tell people how many later on. loggers don't even think about how many trees they've cut....or how many beers they've drank----they just know that it is ALOT!!



btw..are the "busters" the trees that are in the lay of the larger tree to be cut?


----------



## chad3 (Jun 9, 2008)

*Wedges, yes*

I have to say, I have been using wedges more and more now and really work some of them. But the worst case is very small trees wanting to go the other way and I don't have the wedge to pull them over because the saw isn't in enough before the tree starts to lean back. THOSE SUCK!!! Make the most of wedges that you can and remember they are cheap, buy a dozen and be happy. If the tree wants to go the other way and you know it. Put in a few as soon as you can at a the butt (loosing a bit but working up) and you will almost feel the tree start moving the other way.
Chad


----------



## clearance (Jun 9, 2008)

chad3 said:


> I have to say, I have been using wedges more and more now and really work some of them. But the worst case is very small trees wanting to go the other way and I don't have the wedge to pull them over because the saw isn't in enough before the tree starts to lean back. THOSE SUCK!!! Make the most of wedges that you can and remember they are cheap, buy a dozen and be happy. If the tree wants to go the other way and you know it. Put in a few as soon as you can at a the butt (loosing a bit but working up) and you will almost feel the tree start moving the other way.
> Chad



Cut the backcut first, and stick in a wedge, then the undercut. Been talked about before here a few times.


----------



## HolmenTree (Jun 9, 2008)

Ekka said:


> And the winner of this here pissing contest is the legendary man who uses no notch and can cut 4000 redwoods per hour!
> 
> LOL



Glad to meet you Ekka, I think all this excitment can be related to the cane cutters in Australia eh. These guys are respected for their production ,am I correct? Nothing worse then a dog###### to mess up their world .

You know I never had to count my trees,recently just did some averaging and came up with a number what I figure I did in my best years. I always paced out the face of my pile before the weekly scaler came and I was always close to the cords I knew I had,we'd sure yell if we didn't get it. We can compare apple and oranges and different culture lingo here all day long but we are not getting anywhere because I believe no one here was ever a real piecework logger, we can't relate........ and like I said everything I posted here is true.


----------



## HolmenTree (Jun 9, 2008)

Gologit said:


> The BS Meter has red-lined.



GOLOGIT .....do what I said , send an e-mail or whatever to Fred Whyte,Steve Meriam at Stihl or Sam at Madsens[post#229] and get their side of the story and then we'll see how that BS meter is working.

Come on old boy.

Willard Holmen


----------



## HolmenTree (Jun 9, 2008)

Haywire Haywood said:


> The trees they are a shrinkin..... Coulda been a hit song a few years ago.



No I just forgot to put it in my post# 211


----------



## Burvol (Jun 10, 2008)

HolmenTree said:


> GOLOGIT .....do what I said , send an e-mail or whatever to Fred Whyte,Steve Meriam at Stihl or Sam at Madsens[post#229] and get their side of the story and then we'll see how that BS meter is working.
> 
> Come on old boy.
> 
> Willard Holmen



I think your barking up the wrong tree, most guys don't care how many whips you laid waste to. I don't. I'm sure you are a strong man, with a lot of endurance & patience, you'd have to be to cut "timber" with a 16" bar. I'd almost rather limb all day with an axe. That is got to be some repetitive work.


----------



## raycarr (Jun 10, 2008)

Here we go, meter installed.

Ray


----------



## Lakeside53 (Jun 10, 2008)

It's not pegged, yet:greenchainsaw:


----------



## spacemule (Jun 10, 2008)

I've cut nearly 3,000,000 trees in my lifetime.


----------



## GASoline71 (Jun 10, 2008)

Cuttin' paper trees with scissors don't count Rexy... 

Gary


----------



## spacemule (Jun 10, 2008)

GASoline71 said:


> Cuttin' paper trees with scissors don't count Rexy...
> 
> Gary


No, true, I don't use chainsaws. I kick them over like Van Dam did in that kickboxer movie.


----------



## smokechase II (Jun 10, 2008)

*A quick summary of this thread*

I have always wondered why the manuals tell you to make the felling notch 1/3 the diameter of the tree and not more.
----------
It is not written in stone and changed as conditions warrant.
----------
If sarcasm is no longer allowed on AS then Darren might as well shut the site down now.
----------
No big deal. Wilt Chamberlain slept with 20,000 women.
----------
Besides...the real cool people in Del Norte live in Gasquet.
----------
I am sorry but you can fall the typical tree in any direction you want to.
----------
This thread is like a good day of walleye fishing, find a good hole and you get lots of fight. 
---------
I'm not going to cut it. It's for sitting under and drinking beer.
----------
I used to be high ball, but I got old and just tonight almost stepped on them in the shower.
-----------
OK things are beginning to make more sense.

*********************

Personally, my life has new meaning other then the price of gas today.


----------



## smokechase II (Jun 10, 2008)

*Strange thought*

Back to the original post question.

An attempt at a logical premises:

1) The old loggers of the huge trees of the West Coast consistently used deep faces as evidenced by the photos from that time.
2) To put one of these undercuts in was substantial work. On the biggest of these trees, using skilled and physically fit teams it could take over a day to do just the face.
3) If anyone on the planet would have reason to use a smaller face it would have been right there and then.
4) Because they didn't use smaller faces, there must have been a good reason for those deep undercuts. Hey, just a thought.

--------------------------

A) That an individual here on AS could surmise that from what those loggers did, even though they only cut one tree every two days, there might be reasons for Fallers to use a deeper face.
B) That one of those reasons, for a deeper face, might be larger tree diameters.

--------------------------

Then the most important point here on this or any other thread is that one should avoid locking in to any 'one technique fits all' approach.


---------------------------

*? *


----------



## smokechase II (Jun 10, 2008)

*Verification*

A possible way to verify the previous thought would be to look at the difficulties dropping a 'short stubby' presents.

Without being able to show this as simply as in the prior thread, but still attempting anyway, here goes:

A larger diameter short broken off balanced staub can be difficult to fall.
A tree works as a giant lever arm as it starts to and then goes over.
A tree only 25 ft high will have less leverage than a 100 ft tall one.
A balanced tree also will have less leverage than a leaner to start the fall.
---------------
For those that have to drop trees/snags in the 60" diameter 25 foot tall size range, who also have learned techniques that work, and one of those techniques is that a deeper undercut will aid in reducing the difficulty in getting a 'staub' to go over.
I.e.; taking more time to do the face will overall require less wedging and in the end, be easier.


----------



## smokechase II (Jun 10, 2008)

*Attempt*

Here is a primitive attempt at explaining why the previous posts have merit;

*The moving of the fulcrum can make for greater efficiency.*

*******************

This does not mean that moving the hinge deeper into a tree is by any means always desirable.
There are many considerations as to why to not do that. Death would be one of them.

********************

Those considerations also could mean that:
"the most important point here on this or any other thread is that one should avoid locking in to any 'one technique fits all' approach."


----------



## smokechase II (Jun 10, 2008)

*Barber Chairs*

It is always popular to drag out the old barber chair in most any sort of falling discussion. I certainly wouldn't want to change that.

Two of the reasons that can contribute to a barber chair event are:
1) Too shallow a face,
2) Too deep a face.

Faces too shallow that are accompanied by excessive wedging would be the most common example of #1. Should the fulcrum have been placed in a less than optimum location, beating the snot out of some poor plastic wedges can result. (Think of most any barber chair event as being the result of some force - here wedges but usually it is extreme lean or wind etc. - causing the tree to split and move the fulcrum up from the stump.)

Too deep a face, on say a leaner where the face is in the direction of the lean, could cause the tree to go over early - without the back-cut being placed or in progress - hence a popping noise, ripping and splitting sounds, people running about and so forth.


----------



## Ekka (Jun 10, 2008)

HolmenTree said:


> Glad to meet you Ekka, I think all this excitment can be related to the cane cutters in Australia eh. These guys are respected for their production ,am I correct? Nothing worse then a dog###### to mess up their world .
> 
> You know I never had to count my trees,recently just did some averaging and came up with a number what I figure I did in my best years. I always paced out the face of my pile before the weekly scaler came and I was always close to the cords I knew I had,we'd sure yell if we didn't get it. We can compare apple and oranges and different culture lingo here all day long but we are not getting anywhere because I believe no one here was ever a real piecework logger, we can't relate........ and like I said everything I posted here is true.



The old timers worked hard cutting cane. Father inlaw used to do it, hard yacka mate.

I just was making fun of how the thread's going, not that I read it all coz frankly, dont need too.

Also why the 1/3 rule?

*COZ IN EVERY SITUATION IT WORKS AND YOU WONT LOOK LIKE A DECKHEAD IF IT GOES WRONG.​*
It works on forward leaners, back leaners, side leaners, rotten trees, fat trees, thin trees etc etc etc. 

It's like a 6 coil prussik on your climbing system, fool proof no matter which way you want to go.

But like everything there's other ideas and ways however like Smokechase's posts have shown ... lots of covering your ass with disclaimers and dont do the 50% here for this reason and dont do that etc.

WELL JUST DO THE 1/3 NOTCH 100% OF THE TIME AND YOU WONT HAVE TO RUN AROUND COVERING YOUR AZZ. 

That was the simple answer, that is what trained people know, and 17 pages of crap later no-one said it.


----------



## raycarr (Jun 10, 2008)

So, one size fits all, like a 'hoes cootch.


----------



## Ekka (Jun 10, 2008)

One size *SAFELY* fits all, idiot proof!


----------



## ZeroJunk (Jun 10, 2008)

I've been entertained and learned a lot on this thread. Thanks


There are even trees in Australia.


----------



## harrygrey382 (Jun 10, 2008)

ZeroJunk said:


> There are even trees in Australia.


yep - some of the hardest too


----------



## HolmenTree (Jun 10, 2008)

There I put that little smily face up there, my wife warned me its easy to take someone the wrong way writing on the internet.

5:30 AM and I'm on this thread, should be in the shop changing chipper knives and running the 7/32 over those saw teeth. Got customers wondering where I am , trying to juggle my thoughts on how to get one todays customer's big poplar down and not hurt her flowerbed, my 16 mth. twins & 4 yr.old gotta be at daycare in 1 1/2hr ,twins are teething ,kept me & my wife up all night for the last few days. And I can"t find time to answer a simple question on this thread.
Don't get me wrong guys, I'm not trying to be the mister know it all ass#### here,I just love to talk about saws and woodcutting just like the rest of you.Just got to get my sense of humor back,from being a 16 yr kid learning to fall trees in northern Manitoba to the dream job of working for Stihl and now running my own tree service I can share alot of life experiences ....oh the twins and my wife are up ,gotta go,trying to make a balance here. Just want to touch base on the deep notch theory ,before the days of the chainsaw, of course a deep notch had to be made ,you would have alot of barberchair if you didn't. 
talk later,


----------



## smokechase II (Jun 10, 2008)

*Efficiency is still a consideration*

New Thesis:
#1) Spending 206 words prior to just touching base on 36 words that claim to eventually explain shallow faces is inefficient.

Old thesis:
#2) Placing the fulcrum for optimum efficiency is important and not just from the standpoint of barber chair risk.

*****************

Don't forget to include the short stubby's in there somewhere, sometime.

In the interest of efficiency I held this to 67 words.


----------



## HolmenTree (Jun 10, 2008)

smokechase II said:


> New Thesis:
> #1) Spending 206 words prior to just touching base on 36 words that claim to eventually explain shallow faces is inefficient.
> 
> Old thesis:
> ...



Ok Smokechase, I found a little time here,I shut down work early today to get ready for an early am 2 day road trip tomorrow.I wrote this post here in a way that everyone can understand which to me is efficiency. A bit long but efficient enough so people understand it and I don't have to repeat myself. 
I originally posted that I figured I've cut 2 million trees to show I'm not new to tree falling. I know from experience from logging treelength pulpwood and treelength sawlogs roughly how many trees are in a cord, so I averaged from there. 
By showing I am not new to logging I had the confident attitude to admit that it took a city guy arborist from Arbormaster Training to teach me some physics of tree falling that I already was doing but didn't understand what exactly made it work ,only through many years of falling experience it worked for me but I never had to think about what I was doing to make it work. Understand? Then he taught some very efficient and safe felling techniques.

Now when I left logging and started a tree service I'm falling trees around wires and houses, new learning curve here. Trees in an urban environment can be leaning in many different directions and are more bushy [more lower limbs]. You can't afford for it to fall side ways here[property damage]. I learned to climb with the split tail &blakes ,am a good footlocker now [50 yrs young]. But alot of times I fell my urban trees if there is room.
Hingewood: the heart & soul of tree felling. Why 1/4 notch, I always use a 90 degree V notch [when the tree with slight forward lean is felled and on the ground the notch is almost closed tight and the hinge in MOST cases is still holding.
When I make the 1st notch cut I hold the saw against the tree and gunsight my saw's TOP COVER'S sight mark to where the tree must fall, then I proceed to cut straight down almost verticle and verticle if I'm cutting into the flare.Now my tree is squared up to where it should fall.I check the area on the side of the trunk where the 2 cuts will meet[apex] making sure there is no weak spots like borer holes, unsound wood and even peel the outer layer of bark to check for healthy lime green colored chlorophyll to see if the sapwood is moist and healthy. I then make the bottom notch cut and look down through the verticle cut to watch for the sawchain so I don't cut through the apex. Now I have a 90 degree V notch at 1/4 diameter. I check the gunsight of the apex with a 2ft carpenter square to see if the tree is aimed right , if not I can adjust the notch and still be no more then 1/3.Yes on the curvature there is more strong sapwood at 1/4 then 1/3. But at 1/8 the narrower notch apex is weaker in side stability then the added sapwood advantage would give . Cut as low to the flare or ground as you can thats where all the strongest fiber and extra width for stability is.Sapwood is much stronger then dorment heartwood ,only exception that I know of from my part of the world is DED waterlogged dead elm[tremendous heartwood strength] or river birch. To prove this idea when you see pulled fibers sticking out of a stump how often is it in the sapwood area? Part of the root flare would be ripped right out of the ground with the sapwood. Another example,when you have 2 codominate stems growing out of 1 stump and there is a tight split between them and you notch both at once and backcut both at once, both stems have side lean,but there is no or very little sapwood in the crack, when the trees start to fall 1 or both will fall sideways [ how many of you have had that happen?] Now you learn to cut above the split and cut each stem individually. Proof again sapwood is important on each corner of the notch.
Another beauty of 1/4 notchs is the extra room in the backcut to make a plunge cut to setup your hingewood thickness [after you make your notch first of course] then cut the backcut back away from the hingewood and not cut right out but leave a small strap of uncutwood at the back of the tree to keep the tree from falling. Now all your cuts are made and the tree is not commited to fall.This is a excellent technique for heavy forward leaners or backleaners or trees too unsafe to fall while standing next to it. You can cut the strap from 16 ft. away with a polesaw and then the tree proceeds to fall over with you in a safe location.If your bar/chain is not long enough to plunge backcut ,it doesn't matter because the plungecuts from both sides don't have to match the fiber will still break allowing the tree to fall over. 
Ever have a tree sit back and you can't get the wedge in ,no problem.At the back of the tree make a plungecut a 1/2" below the closed backcut , you can cut right clean through the middle of the notchs apex, then drive your wedge through the plungecut and the 1/2" of wood easily breaks and lifts the tree. 

Tapered hingewood: while cutting the backcut leave extra hingewood at the opposite side of the lean on a side leaner but thinner then normal inside the lean side. Keep your backcut and notch apex on the same level of each other, this way you can judge your hingewood thickness better.

Now after all this and the tree still won't go down then place a pull line in the top of the tree with a Bigshot slingshot ,throwline and bag . With a prusik and Masdam rope puller anchored to a nearby tree pull the treeover. I wouldn't recommend this for logging though.LOL.

Willard:greenchainsaw:


----------



## Haywire Haywood (Jun 10, 2008)

I'll give you this Willard. You take a licking and keep on ticking, apparently without losing your temper or losing your desire to make your point. I'd have abandoned this thread long ago if I had been called out like you have.

Ian


----------



## sperho (Jun 11, 2008)

Haywire Haywood said:


> I'll give you this Willard. You take a licking and keep on ticking, apparently without losing your temper or losing your desire to make your point.



Seems like the only people who lose something here are his customers. :hmm3grin2orange:


----------



## teacherman (Jun 11, 2008)

Bizarre, man. Bizarre. WGARA* how bigga how many trees any of us cuts?

When I get to cut a tree up, or cut it down, I get a real kick out of it, because it involves using a chainsaw. Doing it for a living woud be fun, but I am not quite qualified to do that. I also getta kick outta the pics of you guys runnin yer saws, cause it's cool.

I was a decent stone carver a while back, but thumping my chest about it, well, whatever. It's what I did for several years. Big Whoop. That and $650 will buy me a new 361.

I really like hearing the logging stories, etc.. and the chainsaws and videos and jokes and all that stuff. But verbal urination for distance is not an Olympyk event, or a Stihl event for that matter. Share your knowledge, make us all richer for it.

*who gives a rat's ax......


----------



## smokechase II (Jun 11, 2008)

*In reverse paragraph order*

*"Now after all this and the tree still won't go down then place a pull line in the top of the tree with a Bigshot slingshot ,throwline and bag . With a prusik and Masdam rope puller anchored to a nearby tree pull the treeover. I wouldn't recommend this for logging though.LOL."*

Rope is a huge difference between arborist and logger. Variety of places where rope can do a much better job. Understood.

-------

*"Tapered hingewood: while cutting the backcut leave extra hingewood at the opposite side of the lean on a side leaner but thinner then normal inside the lean side. Keep your backcut and notch apex on the same level of each other, this way you can judge your hingewood thickness better."*

Tapered hingewood is a SOP by anyone I know of. Cutting level and keeping cuts level really pays off especially as one gets to larger diameters. A simple way to promote this to new cutters is to take a pocket level and have them practice cutting flat from both sides of the tree and then check for dropping the tip of the bar or angling the cut down with the level. This can be done on a high stumped tree many more times. Of course, this is a great time to practice face and back cut basics when there is no tree falling event to place the trainee in danger from above.

---


*"Ever have a tree sit back and you can't get the wedge in, no problem. At the back of the tree make a plunge cut a 1/2" below the closed backcut , you can cut right clean through the middle of the notches apex, then drive your wedge through the plunge cut and the 1/2" of wood easily breaks and lifts the tree."*

Yea, of course I have done this. 
First thought is avoid this mistake at almost all costs. Obviously. Using an ‘insurance wedge’ promptly is the cats meow. As soon as it can be placed without chain contact. The settling back of a tree is to be avoided not just because of the difficulty starting wedges and pinching the bar. But also because any movement of the top of the tree away from the fulcrum represents a geometric increase in resistance. A teeter totter on a level requires equal forces on each side to balance. Placing more weight on one side creates a resistance that can be countered with an equal force (from below with an incline plane, in this case). Picture a 120 foot tall tree laying down horizontal and trying to wedge it back up and over. The further the top weight, (and all the other places in-between provide resistance), are from the fulcrum the greater the forces needed are to lift that tree back. In this sense, this is an area where a teeter totter is somewhat different than a tree as with the teeter totter we focus on the weight at the end. With a tree there is weight resistance added throughout incrementally as we move up the stem. Geometric increase in resistance means that it is of great importance to not let a tree set back the slightest amount. Like cutting level every time, a great principle to live by.
Another way to recover from a set back is to cut from the inside back out for only a portion of the backcut and create an opening that will accept a wedge while still being in the same cut.
A disadvantage to doing the plunge below for a new spot for the wedge is that it reduces the viability of the wedge by the thickness of the bar. This rear plunge also places the faller behind the tree and with most of the tree cut off this is not as safe as being to the side.
To do this 'quarter' recut simply bore back in with (small diameters) in the same cut. It is not that hard to follow the old one in. Then cut back out leaving the other half of the back cut area still supporting the tree. The sawyer may need to recut this again angling the saw downward just slightly to get an adequate opening to accept the first wedge. Wedge in this opening and as it lifts the tree then the other side comes available for other wedges. A big hint here is to make this first recut on the side with the least weight.

Of course one of the primary ways to avoid this on smaller diameter trees is to make the back-cut or a portion of the backcut first, then establish the wedge(s) needed and proceed with the face being sure to not cut the wood on the corners, (sapwood on both sides).

---


*"When I make the 1st notch cut I hold the saw against the tree and gunsight my saw's TOP COVER'S sight mark to where the tree must fall, then I proceed to cut straight down almost verticle and verticle if I'm cutting into the flare."*

Making the top cut of the notch first is something I'd recommend against for two primary reasons.
1) It is not as accurate as utilizing the flat of a face, within the skill level of any given cutter. A quick way to understand this concept is to start a 45 degree angled cut then deliberately make it off level. Place the bar where it is pointing up in the air at a 45 degree angle, in addition to the 45 degree angle downward slope. Now look at the sights from the top, exactly from straight above. Note how the sight on the top of the saw points to a different spot than the sight on the side of the saw. The reality is the face direction is somewhere in-between those two lines. Once the cut is completed level.
This exaggerated angle is used to point out why the sighting cut is best if it is perfectly level. 

2) Once started, the top of the face does not allow for but minimal adjustment in direction. That is why starting with a flat cut can be better, it allows for precise adjustment directionally. 

Of course sighting from the rear is far superior to sighting from above. It is important to see both the target and the sight in the same view. If one notes any learning faller bobbing his head back and forth trying to draw an imaginary line with his mind or even his hand they need to be stopped from bad habits like that immediately. Don't use imaginary lines, use real lines of sight. Can you picture the accuracy differences that would show up with target shooters using sights from above vs. looking down the barrel? Pistol shooting is actually a reasonable comparison as the pistol sights are about the same length as the sights on the saw.

One of the reasons the carpenters square trick, that you mention *"I check the gunsight of the apex with a 2ft carpenter square to see if the tree is aimed right....", *works so well is that it has a longer sight. The difference between rifle accuracy and pistol accuracy if you will. The other good reason for using a carpenters square, when you can, is that if placed in the center of the face it shows where the tree is facing. Not where the saw powerhead is facing by using the sights on the saw. As the tree diameter increases this "off to the side" distance increases and with taller trees this could mean hitting a stump and breaking up good lumber.
A nice drill is to have a learning faller check out the face direction, with their sights, from both sides of the tree. If the back of the face is square, (trivia - even with the very slight curve of the modern bars it may not be exactly exactly square), the sighting from either side will be slightly off by the distance apart of the powerhead locations. This means that the tree has been faced in-between these two sight lines.

Additionally; making the face at a high angle as in open face technique does not allow for use of the dogs. While not a big factor in smaller diameters this dog free cutting, (many cutters with small bars in smaller tree diameter falling), actually remove even the small factory dogs. That results in a huge arm strength fatigue factor over the course of a day.

---

With further regard to the carpenters square trick. When making the level part of the face cut first one can place and use the square on the flat prior to the angled cut being made. The undercut doesn't have to be removed for the square to do its job unless the trees diameter is over 3 feet or so. (I have a bigger square.) Then the face direction can be corrected as needed well before any large re-cutting project is mandated.
A string can be placed and matched to the square for illustrations.
Sighting sticks can be used in very large diameters and clearly are superior.
A really nice teaching tool with the saw off on a safe tree or learning high stump. The saw and square can both be in position at the same time. Then the learning faller can see where both are pointing and understand the powerhead off-set parallax.

---

An additional advantage to checking out the wood of the tree with the face being removed, WITH A DEEPER FACE, is that the cutter can see more of the tree exposed. This has relevance in the world of decay. 
{Quick sidebar for the good of the order.}

----

*"I then make the bottom notch cut and look down through the verticle cut to watch for the sawchain so I don't cut through the apex."*

This is nice for those that have trouble matching cuts and do not have the discipline to check.
Making deeper faces and higher faces does require more skill. 

--


*"But at 1/8 the narrower notch apex is weaker in side stability then the added sapwood advantage would give . "*

Yes, that would be true also.

---

*"Cut as low to the flare or ground as you can that’s where all the strongest fiber and extra width for stability is."*

Again, good points from the standpoint of wood strength.
Caution here on hazard trees. Ability to look up and escape can override short stump needs.
Cutting lower is more difficult as the wood is denser and also a sawyer can find dirt down there.

--

*"Sapwood is much stronger then dorment heartwood............. "*

No disputing that. Heartwood is more brittle and behaves like drought stressed sapwood. The flexible strength of sapwood and emphasis of protecting the holding wood at the corners certainly is not under dispute.


----------



## smokechase II (Jun 11, 2008)

*That was nice*

But we didn't deal with easier wedging with superior fulcrum placement or why that works so well in larger diameters and taller trees. You did mention something about the need for larger faces being removed by chain saws.

Still curious about the SE lean observation. The why that would be in your location.

Anyone else want to jump in on the predominant lean in your AO?


----------



## raycarr (Jun 11, 2008)

Sure, why not. The area where I spend most of my sawing time, is a North West facing slope, the majority of the trees there have a lean to the SSW. The last place I cut in, basically the other side of hill, faced South East, the trees there leaned to the NW.

Can you help me calculate the Coriolis Effect on the taller trees?

Good job Smoke, easy to visualize, not tough to understand, some of the early stuff cracked me up.

Ray


----------



## smokechase II (Jun 11, 2008)

*C effect*

*"Can you help me calculate the Coriolis Effect on the taller trees?"*

Only in this northern hemisphere.

Simply put.
My trees always spin clockwise as I cut off one or both corners.


----------



## raycarr (Jun 11, 2008)

Ah yes, can be excellerated into the helicopter cut, usefull in thick stands, the prevent hanging up trees.

Ray


----------



## smokechase II (Jun 11, 2008)

*limb removal*

I greatly prefer it due to the self limbing feature.


----------



## raycarr (Jun 11, 2008)

I heard that the ACLU was filing against the use of terms like "Dutchman" and "Chinese" cuts as not PC. What is your take on this issue?

Ray


----------



## smokechase II (Jun 11, 2008)

*Did you hear?*

French fries are suing French toast for name infringement.
They are being represented by Swede.
-----------
OK, wait a minute.



Let's get back to moving the fulcrum.

Somebody explain to me why hinge placement, on larger trees, isn't important from the standpoint of superior leverage.
------------
Perhaps someone who has had made a career of cutting larger trees.


----------



## windthrown (Jun 11, 2008)

I got lost in the details of the debates here. 

33.33333333333333333333333% wedgies work or me. Good leverage, good room for wedges, good length of hinge wood. Reasonable rule of thumb.


----------



## smokechase II (Jun 12, 2008)

*Segment method of wedging*

Just a cautionary line on a weakness in the GOL / Open Face methodology with regard to larger trees.

There is a technique they teach: "the segment method" of calculating whether a wedge(s) can lift a tree the distance needed to get it to go over.

It is based on dimensions. 

To try and put it simply; based on a trees diameter (actually distance from wedge to hinge - fulcrum), height and lean, can a wedge(s) of a certain size (height) provide the needed lift?

-------------

http://www.forestapps.com/tips/wedge/wedge.htm

Has a good explanation. Go down to the 10th paragraph.

------------

Where this technique falls short is it makes no attempt to determine if a wedge *could* lift any given tree. That it doesn't even mention this limitation is revealing.

This is because when you work in smaller timber, realistically resistance isn't much of an issue when compared with larger diameter and taller timber.

-------------

Why is this important on a thread about face depth?

If a falling method doesn't deal with greater resistance, (where a wedge could move a tree far enough but can't be driven because of too much weight), then it reveals itself to be inappropriate overall in larger trees.


----------



## clearance (Jun 12, 2008)

Another caution. They say you can move the wedge close to the holding wood to lift the tree, I do not like this because you are lifting the tree almost straight up. Just asking to break the holding wood if you are really beating on it. With the wedge, or wedges at the farthest point from the holding wood, you are pushing the tree over and putting side pressure on the holding wood, which is what you want. 

Not going to comment much on the crazy, gaping undercut they show. A humboldt 30 degree works fine 99% of the time. Theres is not a technigue for logging, and it ain't a game.


----------



## Gologit (Jun 12, 2008)

clearance said:


> Another caution. They say you can move the wedge close to the holding wood to lift the tree, I do not like this because you are lifting the tree almost straight up. Just asking to break the holding wood if you are really beating on it. With the wedge, or wedges at the farthest point from the holding wood, you are pushing the tree over and putting side pressure on the holding wood, which is what you want.
> 
> Not going to comment much on the crazy, gaping undercut they show. A humboldt 30 degree works fine 99% of the time. Theres is not a technigue for logging, and it ain't a game.



Well said.


----------



## Ekka (Jun 12, 2008)

bla bla bla!


----------



## Ekka (Jun 13, 2008)

Hmmm, that worked then, no posts for a day.


----------



## tree_beard (Jun 13, 2008)

Ekka said:


> Hmmm, that worked then, no posts for a day.



only yours, you bloody love it really....:deadhorse:


----------



## Ekka (Jun 13, 2008)

Sshhhh, we might end up with another 17 pages of who's :censored: is the longest.


----------



## ZeroJunk (Jun 13, 2008)

Mine's not very big around, but it's short.


----------



## RiverRat2 (Jun 13, 2008)

ZeroJunk said:


> Mine's not very big around, but it's short.




Hmmm??????? :monkey:



Ekka said:


> Sshhhh, we might end up with another 17 pages of who's :censored: is the longest.



Yall are Sick!!!!! weird and sick!!!!!! and what does this have to do with the 1/3rd diameter notch rule???


----------



## redprospector (Jun 13, 2008)

RiverRat2 said:


> Hmmm??????? :monkey:
> 
> 
> 
> Yall are Sick!!!!! weird and sick!!!!!! and what does this have to do with the 1/3rd diameter notch rule???



Hahaha. I don't know, but someone could put a 1/3 diameter notch in it and see if he falls in the desired direction.  

Andy


----------



## windthrown (Jun 13, 2008)

Ekka said:


> Hmmm, that worked then, no posts for a day.



Hey, is a Humbolt cut upside down there in Australia? :greenchainsaw:


----------



## Burvol (Jun 13, 2008)

clearance said:


> Another caution. They say you can move the wedge close to the holding wood to lift the tree, I do not like this because you are lifting the tree almost straight up. Just asking to break the holding wood if you are really beating on it. With the wedge, or wedges at the farthest point from the holding wood, you are pushing the tree over and putting side pressure on the holding wood, which is what you want.
> 
> Not going to comment much on the crazy, gaping undercut they show. A humboldt 30 degree works fine 99% of the time. Theres is not a technigue for logging, and it ain't a game.


.


----------



## RiverRat2 (Jun 14, 2008)

windthrown said:


> Hey, is a Humbolt cut upside down there in Australia? :greenchainsaw:



Well wendy if you cut a Humboldt here and brought it down there I suppose it'd be "up side down" LLOLOL!!!! or Vice versa


----------



## Ekka (Jun 14, 2008)

I was really frisky today and went for a 3/8 notch .... woo the knees were a trembling with anticipation of some wacko barber chair or perhaps 15 diagram explanation of the consequences .... thank GOD that TreeSpyder wasn't around or I'd have to digest a 45 page Thesis's on the equal and opposite digestive track! :hmm3grin2orange:


----------



## Ohiowoodguy (Jun 14, 2008)

Gologit said:


> Yup...gotta agree. Ekka, with his experience and knowledge, could have helped this guy. Instead, he chose to display his immaturity and shameful lack of humanity.
> 
> Hey Ekka...if the guy has a legitimate question, why not just answer it? If he argues with you or rejects your advice or turns out to be a cretin then you can whack him around a bit. Until then let's give him the benefit of the doubt.



You gotta be kidding me. Multiple personality disorder?


----------



## Gologit (Jun 14, 2008)

Ohiowoodguy said:


> You gotta be kidding me. Multiple personality disorder?



I don't know. But if you feel that's part of your problem maybe a visit to a mental health professional might help you. Let us know how it works out .


----------



## smokechase II (Jun 14, 2008)

*order*

Multiple personality disorder is a lot like a tree with three tops.

It can be hard to figure out which way they're leaning being so complex and all. The fallers I know will generally use multiple undercuts just to be sure.

Of course, suspect rot, cankers and an unbalanced root structure.


----------



## pgg (Jun 15, 2008)

For thinning to waste 12 year old forests where the trees are getting a strain for 60cc stihls, on a hill just a 2-cut, away they go airborne, 60 foot trees doing somersaults, waste your time scarfing them, drop them sideways they take other good trees with them when it's this steep, best way to lay them over with a thick hinge and wedges, leave them and hope they die, won't happen, too many know-all officials, the trees survive it, these conifer trees are like weeds, who wants to be belting and hammering pita wedges anyway, they're paying by the damn hectare and muttering bark damage, they think they can plant trees on s**t country and get a perfect forest, don't work that way, takes too long with wedges and a hammer's far too heavy to be carrying around, chop a batten if you're desperate, doing it all wrong if you're fighting gravity, effortless going with it, there's always room somewhere for the tree to land clear, plus I'm not putting my back out for no bastard


----------



## windthrown (Jun 15, 2008)

RiverRat2 said:


> Yall are Sick!!!!! weird and sick!!!!!! and what does this have to do with the 1/3rd diameter notch rule???



Maybe Loretta Bobbit can best answer that? :greenchainsaw:


----------



## windthrown (Jun 15, 2008)

Ekka said:


> I was really frisky today and went for a 3/8 notch .... woo the knees were a trembling with anticipation of some wacko barber chair or perhaps 15 diagram explanation of the consequences .... thank GOD that TreeSpyder wasn't around or I'd have to digest a 45 page Thesis's on the equal and opposite digestive track! :hmm3grin2orange:



Eeeee.... a 3/8 notch? Ohmygod! That is 0.0417 larger than desired. You might lose your tree license for doing that too often!


----------



## bcorradi (Jun 15, 2008)

windthrown said:


> Maybe Loretta Bobbit can best answer that? :greenchainsaw:


Windthrown - whatta you know...you run glued together 025's? :jawdrop:


----------



## slowp (Jun 15, 2008)

smokechase II said:


> Multiple personality disorder is a lot like a tree with three tops.
> 
> It can be hard to figure out which way they're leaning being so complex and all. The fallers I know will generally use multiple undercuts just to be sure.
> 
> Of course, suspect rot, cankers and an unbalanced root structure.



Even though we must usually make volume deductions when cruising a multiple top tree, there sometimes may actually be more volume in a multiple top. Since one is cruising only to one top, when fork or forks are above DBH, there may be "free" logs to be had if tree has been paid for in advance. Link to personalities? I have no idea. Not a shrink.  Continue on...opcorn:


----------



## Ekka (Jun 16, 2008)

Ohiowoodguy said:


> You gotta be kidding me. Multiple personality disorder?



Not sure who you directed this at but after reading your posts ... I certainly wont ask what the point is.  

I often wont directly answer because people need to learn and research, without exercising their own brain you end up with herds of sheep.

This is a fundamental near global rule of thumb.

There's been some expansion upon it and ideas tossed out there, 17 pages of it. If I posted my smart ass page 17 quote straight off the bat it would have gone down very different, either a quick short thread or a fight.

Now that everything was said and done I posted my smart comment and guess what ... no room for a fight.

So, dont confuse your distorted perspective with my state of mental health (if you did that is). Coz I'd whip your ass in my sleep.


----------



## windthrown (Jun 24, 2008)

*Stirring the shyte...*

And that (^^^) was said by a man that runs around in velcro shoes to keep from falling off the other side of the earth, too! :greenchainsaw: 

Maybe cabin feaver is geting to them down under as well. Its the longest week of the year up here, so its the shortest down there. I can see Ekka grabbing one of his 440s and wandering the halls of AS, in one of his multiple personaes, 'Shining' style...


"I only want to cut one third!!!"


----------



## windthrown (Jun 24, 2008)

And just in case Ek comes after me with my own 440, 

Just joking buddy! :greenchainsaw:


----------



## Ekka (Jun 25, 2008)

Hey, I got a Wojo modded muffler on my 44! Look bloody out mate.  

No cabin fever here, winter is like the best time of year, 24C, clear blue skies and not much wind.

Summer is the rainy season, it's semi-tropical here.

Just gotta visit to whip a few rednecks.


----------



## HolmenTree (Jun 25, 2008)

Good to see this thread is still running. 

Ekka your winter season must be your busy season now,if like you say your summers are wet. Our winters here in Canada [Nov.-Mar.] is not our busy arborist season, almost zero business. If there was hand fallers still in the bush ,I'd probably spend my winters doing that.

I got something here for Smokechase. Years back when Cannon[ now WoodLand Pro] bar company out of Langley B.C was a small shop, I could just phone them and they would make me one bar built the way I wanted[timber sports, carving]. I had a special bar built with no belly in it ,straight as an arrow. It had the old Oregon 2 7/8" medium contour 1/4 moon joint tip,the rails ran straight back then tapered down at the tail. I designed this bar for tree[pole] felling competitions. When making the notch in the pole the cut [apex] was perfectly straight to allow for better felling gunsight. We know that a regular bar makes a curved cut , not perfect for notches, right? Now lets expand on this, when the notches apex and the backcut are straight that would also make the hingewood more straight and uniform. Would this not make the hinge stronger and more stable? 

Willard


----------



## windthrown (Jun 26, 2008)

Anudder reason I like my longer GB bars better than Stihl is that they are less oval (narrower in the middle). Oddly I learned to compensate for the oval bars and cut stright wedgies pretty early on. But I tend to cut from the top of the bar down, and lower the saw down as I go, unless I am dawged in and leveraging on it hard (I tend to only do that when bucking though).


----------



## Haywire Haywood (Jun 26, 2008)

HolmenTree said:


> Years back when Cannon [now WoodLand Pro] bar company out of Langley B.C was a small shop, I could just phone them and they would make me one bar built the way I wanted[timber sports, carving].



You still can. Woodland Pro bars are rebadged Cannons, but Cannon hasn't "become" Woodland Pro, Bailey's just has a contract with them. http://www.cannonbar.com/

Ian


----------



## RiverRat2 (Jun 26, 2008)

Haywire Haywood said:


> You still can. Woodland Pro bars are rebadged Cannons, but Cannon hasn't "become" Woodland Pro, Bailey's just has a contract with them. http://www.cannonbar.com/
> 
> Ian



Keep em straight Ian,,,,,,    

It will be a tough row to hoe,,,,,,,,


----------



## smokechase II (Jun 27, 2008)

*straight bars*

*"Now lets expand on this, when the notches apex and the backcut are straight that would also make the hingewood more straight and uniform. Would this not make the hinge stronger and more stable? "*

-----------------

Emphasis in this question should be is the sapwood equal on both sides with bar curves on any given tree? 

The holding wood being equal would make for a more stable hinge. So, if the bars length fit the tree in the sense that those slight curves in the sapwood were the same. No differance'.

-------------------

So next time take two carpenters squares and put them back to back in the face and see if they match exactly.
My experience has been they don't ............ exactly. (never had a canon bar)

But this is splitting a fairly small hair.
Try sighting sticks, (or cord), for actually being accurate.

When one steps up to matching cuts, (shorter bars in bigger diameters), is the curve of the tip being more pronounced a greater effect than the curve on the saw side of the bar?

Splitting hairs when dealing with heartwood.

-----------------

What I would say is that these are fairly small corrections compared to looking at the sights from above or ignoring the powerhead sight parallax. They are interesting to point out to experienced fallers with the double square tool. They are there, yes.


----------



## smokechase II (Jun 27, 2008)

*But wait, don't go just yet*

Back to the days of the great slaughter.

What falling technique did you use back then?

For the trees bigger than 10 inches.

Was a portion of your 'wedging' accomplished by equipment?

------------

Still curious on the explanation for SE lean in your location.

Thanks


----------



## slowp (Jun 27, 2008)

I've not had any spare time, but if I can figure out where it is, the former Stihl tv commercial cutter and now full time insurance seller and part time faller dumped an 11 foot daimeter hazard tree this week and maybe I can get a picture of the "after". It was leaning towards the road but he was able to miss the road. The stump might be interesting.


----------



## smokechase II (Jun 28, 2008)

*John Pollman*

I expect it is a decent stump.

John is incredibly good.

---------------------------

That family decorated their baby rooms with stihl posters and the kids played with wedges and jacks.
Skipping cowboys and indians they stuck with feds and gypos. 
Parents were the whistle punks.

OK, mild exaggeration on all but the first two sentences.


----------



## 2dogs (Jun 29, 2008)

Last week I was on vacation on a desert island all by myself. Well, plus 300 Boy Scouts. Laying in my tent at night my last though before sleep was- I wonder how the 1/3 notch rule thread is going.


----------



## Fuzly (Jun 30, 2008)

No doubt-page 21 and still going?


----------



## Haywire Haywood (Jun 30, 2008)

You must have your pages pretty short... only page 8 for me.

Ian


----------



## redprospector (Jun 30, 2008)

Haywire Haywood said:


> You must have your pages pretty short... only page 8 for me.
> 
> Ian



I don't think I could take longer pages. 

Andy


----------



## HolmenTree (Jul 1, 2008)

Haywire Haywood said:


> You still can. Woodland Pro bars are rebadged Cannons, but Cannon hasn't "become" Woodland Pro, Bailey's just has a contract with them. http://www.cannonbar.com/
> 
> Ian



Thanks Ian for taking the time to make this more clear. Yes I have been working alot of 14-15 hr. days lately and the old thinker ticker has been lacking in efficiency lately. Cannon being a Canadian company, I didn't think many people on this site would know who they are anyway. Bailey's[everyone knows Baileys] being the worlds largest woodsmen supplier has given Cannon a big contract [probably Cannons biggest] to make their WoodLand Pro bars, so I just used the WoodLand name thinking most everyone here would know who they are.
The last custom bar they made for me was around 1990,[had alot made in the 80's]. But just a few years back I found out they only sell to dealers now in quanity,unless I got some wrong information or most recently they have gone back to their old policies.
Probably the best bar I had made[ and still have it like new] was a hotsaw competition bar made by General Bar Company ,Tigard, Oregon in 1984. The man who built it was named Harley. Harley put such a smooth polished finish on it ,to me was better then chrome. The tolerances are all spot on. The rails never burred with all the abuse they took. But like alot of great companies they no longer exist, I guess they just made their product a little to long lasting.

Willard


----------



## HolmenTree (Jul 1, 2008)

smokechase II said:


> Back to the days of the great slaughter.
> 
> What falling technique did you use back then?
> 
> ...



Sorry it took so long to answer this Smokechase,been a little busy lately, trying to strike a balance with many 14 hr work days and a young family. Yes I still keep that old straight 24" competition bar in my worksaw fleet. Keep it on my old 064 and bring it out for those really tight felling spots in residential tree removal. Yes we can write a book on all the variables in making a notch. We do alot of DED elm removal and the hingewood right through the sapwood and heartwood is all strong. When your notch and backcut are straight you have a nice straight hinge,and when those back fibers start to break as the tree goes over I know they are all breaking evenly. The straight bar is also nice to gunsight with, with a regular curved bar you have to center the middle of the bar with the middle of the notch to get the correct 90 degree with the saws sights. Yes much bigger trees you can sight with many other methods, one is the loggers measuring tape method, I never had to use it but I hear its very accurate.You can buy pretty big carpenter squares, alot bigger then 2'. Yes gunsighting on both sides of the tree are different ,you have a 100ft x24" dia tree and the 2 transit spots at 100' away from both sides of the tree will be greater then 24" apart [look at a pencil close to your eye a few feet from these letters on this post and see how many letters in width the pencil covers, greater then the pencil width right?] So with these 2 transit spots at 100' I use the center between them for my gunsight. Simple physics.

Yes back in the great days of logging slaughter in Northern Manitoba's boreal forest. You all know that the dark green color of the coniferous boreal forest causes global warming? It has been proven . I should get a few responses on this now eh? This forest stretches all the way around to northern Europe and Russia.Biggest in the world. Should be replaced with light colored decidious.

Now where was I? As a logger I cut for 2 of our companies mills ,1 was a large lumbermill 12 acres under 1 roof ,built in 1969. And a large papermill also built in 1969 by the Manitoba government. 1/2 the time I cut smaller pulpwood for the papermill and the other 1/2 larger sawlog timber for the lumber division. In the larger timber I used a humbolt notch [ less waste for lumbermaking] and wedged my backleaners. We worked piecework[by the cord] so if the skidder was close by I would have my partner push it over to save time,but if the foremen caught you leaving cut standing trees and turning your back to them, you were sent home for 3 days for the unsafe practice. We had different wedges for the winter and the summer.Some of the guys liked felling levers in the smaller wood.

In our flat terrain our trees on the average lean to the southeast,I have even seen this all across Europe on a 6 mth backpacking trip my wife and I did back in 2002. In hilly or mountainous terrain it can vary and also trees growing close to bodies of water. But look out your door and see what direction most of your trees tops lean towards to.I bet it is SE. The sunrise in the SE is the greatest effect on a trees growth. Down in Australia Ekkas trees should be leaning to the NE.

Willard


----------



## smokechase II (Jul 1, 2008)

*SE lean*

OK relax on this one. I'm not posting to disagree on this point.
I bet this is true in your location.

Let’s see if we can figure this out.

-----------------------

*Where the morning sun don't shine.*
On slopes away from the morning sun, NW, W, and SW where is no direct morning sun if the slope is steep enough at that latitude; there can be no opportunity for the "(SE) greatest effect on a trees growth" to occur. Those trees are getting no morning sun, so this effect is removed as during the morning there is diffuse light.

Which by the way, depending on the latitude and time of year you're at the sunrise varies from the NE to E to SE.

------------------------

Now just because this shows an instance of where the SE thing doesn’t occur in topography it doesn’t mean that your point is defunct. I would suggest that it actually would tend to verify the SE thing overall. Although a faller would want to discard the SE sun theory on certain slopes totally.

*****************************

A similar view could be held of trees on the edge of a meadow. They very very commonly lean toward the center of the opening. Their chance for greatest light is to have their limbs and top lean toward the available light. The trees beside them restrict sunlight while there is basically unrestricted light toward the meadow. 
Now there still may be a slight tendency for the top to lean other than the center. I’ll have to look that over. {My instinct could well be off here as the limb weight is so substantial on the meadow side on these non self pruning trees that the only sensible option is to drop them toward the center. This may be in spite of a top lean elsewhere.}
In any case, don’t react. I think the sunlight lean is prominent and a factor, generally.

There still is a common lean tendency of downhill on slope. I’ve been asking experienced fallers that one for a couple weeks for verification. 
Additionally, there are several qualifications to this I’ve heard over the years. Species __________ will lean toward the ___________ on the _______________ slope. None of those claims did I have the experience locally to dispute.

My 7 ½ months traveling by backpack in Europe 1973-1974, (and Israel), were a great experience also. (At no time did I look over trees for their lean tendencies. Nothing for me to draw from there.)

*******************

Now why is the morning sun superior?
I've asked you for the why of this lean. So far I've gotten it’s a fact type of response from you and not why the morning sun is superior.
Why?

Is it because the morning sun is less likely to be obstructed by clouds that typically form later in the day?

====================

Some unrelated trivia:
This probably has nothing to do with this discussion of lean. 
In the world of wildland fire fighting, (at this latitude anyway), we focus on the SW sun being the strongest. It has the greatest effect on how dry the live and dead fuels are because that SW sun combined with the heat of the day really cooks those hillsides. It is not just that the fuels are hotter and slightly closer to ignition temps.
It is common in the Great American Steppe of much of the west, where moisture events can be well spaced, to plant trees on the NNE side of a shade obstacles such as a rock or stump. This shade can give a recently transplanted tree just enough additional moisture to make it. We are encouraged not to plant on the N side, but NNE. N and NE are OK if needed but not preferred.
Our fuel moisture/fire behavior tables are based on several factors. Of course the effect of the sun in the afternoon is a primary correction factor.
Again, this probably has no relevance to the SE suns/plant lean.
These tables are not generally used at Canadian and Alaskan latitudes.

Now what might that tend to indicate?
That the latitude one is at can have an effect on the lean.

Anyone want to wade in on this?


----------



## smokechase II (Jul 1, 2008)

*face depth*

Back to the computer and back to face depth discussion.

Here is another example of a situation where a deeper face, to optimally locate the fulcrum (hinge) can be a nice benefit.

You're dropping a tree at 90 degrees to its lean.
The holding wood is strong on the tension side. You're living right.

This right angle falling success can be enhanced by moving the fulcrum to a point where more of the weight of the tree is overall on the side of the desired direction of fall. 

OK, its is offset to the side.
OK, the corner (sapwood) wood needs to be strong enough to assist in pulling the tree regardless of face depth. Tapered hinge a given to provide the sapwood tension side strength.

----------------

There are trees where the lean is so great this 90 degree cannot be accomplished. Understood. {You Dutchman guys stay quiet.)

I'd like the reader to consider that by moving the fulcrum, possibly to the middle of the tree, a cutter can increase the number of leaner’s they can right angle drop within the context of the wedging techniques they use.

----------------

Leverage is important. 
Fulcrum placement is important.


----------



## HolmenTree (Jul 5, 2008)

I enjoyed posting on this thread for the last couple of weeks,but now it just appears its just me and you Smokechase. You have a great technical mindset,did you ever fall timber for a living besides doing it in firefighting? Everything you have said in this thread will get a tree on the ground no problem, I'm not going to dispute any of it, its just that I added a little extra for everyone else to enjoy and maybe they can learn from it.

On the SE lean thing, even in Europe in 2002[only time I've being over there] I found SE was also the average dominate lean. The reason I noticed was because 2 years earlier I passed my ISA arborist exam and I was getting right into the trade, so on my trip I was making notes of trees and arborists doing their work over there.From my logging days years earlier cutting blocks of timber and keeping the felling face straight working with the SE lean has always been a mindset for me. A tree or plant biologist could probably answer this one[does the morning sun affect a trees lean in 1 direction] I believe it does. I didn't pursue tree biology because I can make a better living cutting the tree down rather then being a consulting arborist. I do what I do best,at 50 yrs I am now not going to go to university and get a degree. But my gut feeling is that in the trees growing season spring to early fall,the longer sunlit days with sunrise being as early as 4 am and after a night of darkness the tree [ever since as a small sapling] has grown toward that environment [phototropism]. Have you ever noticed leaves on some trees almost twisting upside down when the sun first comes up and then back down again when its the full hot sun of the afternoon?

Anyway we had a great thread here.
Willard.


----------



## secureland (Jul 5, 2008)

HolmenTree said:


> I enjoyed posting on this thread for the last couple of weeks,but now it just appears its just me and you Smokechase. You have a great technical mindset,did you ever fall timber for a living besides doing it in firefighting? Everything you have said in this thread will get a tree on the ground no problem, I'm not going to dispute any of it, its just that I added a little extra for everyone else to enjoy and maybe they can learn from it.
> 
> On the SE lean thing, even in Europe in 2002[only time I've being over there] I found SE was also the average dominate lean. The reason I noticed was because 2 years earlier I passed my ISA arborist exam and I was getting right into the trade, so on my trip I was making notes of trees and arborists doing their work over there.From my logging days years earlier cutting blocks of timber and keeping the felling face straight working with the SE lean has always been a mindset for me. A tree or plant biologist could probably answer this one[does the morning sun affect a trees lean in 1 direction] I believe it does. I didn't pursue tree biology because I can make a better living cutting the tree down rather then being a consulting arborist. I do what I do best,at 50 yrs I am now not going to go to university and get a degree. But my gut feeling is that in the trees growing season spring to early fall,the longer sunlit days with sunrise being as early as 4 am and after a night of darkness the tree [ever since as a small sapling] has grown toward that environment [phototropism]. Have you ever noticed leaves on some trees almost twisting upside down when the sun first comes up and then back down again when its the full hot sun of the afternoon?
> 
> ...



Don't forget the wind's long-term effect on a growing tree!


----------



## smokechase II (Jul 5, 2008)

*science*

*"I didn't pursue tree biology because I can make a better living cutting the tree down rather then being a consulting arborist. I do what I do best,at 50 yrs I am now not going to go to university and get a degree."*

------------

I'm not in line for a degree at age 56 either.

This is pretty interesting and understanding the why could have some benefits.

I wish I had heard of this before and could have thought it through as I was hearing lean tendency discussions in various places traveling as a fire fighter.
It certainly makes sense that flat ground would show sunlight related tendency's best and then an understanding of topography setting leans could follow.

*************

It seems that the downhill lean tendency often observed in the NW may be nothing more than seeking available light. Instead of the gravity based thought I've simply had and went blindly on with.
Looking at a hillside with a uniform full forest canopy, each trees best access to light is going to be downhill. At least on W - S - E slopes.
Perhaps it is available light and gravity together. Trees are self pruning as they grow up in a forest. Those limbs without enough light die off. The remaining limbs seeking light, (downhill side with their green weight), could also pull the tree that way. It may not be just the plant seeking light but also limb weight causing some of the same.
???

--------------

I'll look trees over for awhile with this stuff in mind. For instance, I was thinking that the hemlock we have with a nodding leader might be a good tree to study for lean. Who knows?

Since there appears to be no lean tendency input on AS for now, I'll wait a few months and see if I can draw out some with "leaner" threads then.


----------



## HolmenTree (Jul 6, 2008)

Back to that carpenter square gunsighting. Lets put one of those day pointer green lasers[Sherrils or Baileys] in the middle of the long straight edge of the square,fixed 90 degrees of course. Now you can aim from the middle of your notch and not have to split the difference of the 2 sides of the tree.

Willard


----------



## Sprig (Jul 6, 2008)

HolmenTree said:


> Back to that carpenter square gunsighting. Lets put one of those day pointer green lasers[Sherrils or Baileys] in the middle of the long straight edge of the square,fixed 90 degrees of course. Now you can aim from the middle of your notch and not have to split the difference of the 2 sides of the tree.
> 
> Willard



That'd work well I think, but then so does a piece of string 

(a fine idea btw, not slaggin' ya at all mate!)



Serge


----------



## smokechase II (Jul 6, 2008)

*Either that or*

Have accuracy contests where each cutter has to show where they will place the top of the tree.

Instead of just hitting a 40 or 60 or 80 or 100 foot out target for beverage bets.
Use the stick trick to locate where the top will smack down and the contest is decided by cumulative distance to that spot. Not a right or left but vector to where the very top hits.

Your buddy gets choice of tree/snag as you challenged them. (If they're new to this game they may go for the shorter tree instead of avoiding sweeps or crooks. Perhaps one could snooker them until their street smarts come around.)

(Dead and taller tree tops often break and bounce further - some tree reassembly may be required by third party).

********************

Of course with any bet between gentlemen there 'should' be complete disclosure prior to competition.
Failing to mention laser, square, clinometer, straight bar and wind gauge could be cause for black listing or payment in lite beer versus microbrew.

*******************

Who knows, even notching your falling axe handle precisely at 'eye distance' to make it that special stick always available could invite bitterness between friends.

Of course, any bank shots need to be called prior to back-cut.


----------



## joesawer (Jul 6, 2008)

smokechase II said:


> *"I didn't pursue tree biology because I can make a better living cutting the tree down rather then being a consulting arborist. I do what I do best,at 50 yrs I am now not going to go to university and get a degree."*
> 
> ------------
> 
> ...



They grow to the sun light. Imo gravity has virtually nothing to do with it. The tree spends its whole life growing against gravity. 
Even when a tree is bent, broken or partially uprooted it will immediately began to grow towards the most light.


----------



## slowp (Jul 7, 2008)

Pistol butt can be caused by a tree on an unstable slope (how I hate that term) when the slope slides a little and the tree then goes to straighten up. Pistol butt is also caused when a log slides down against a young tree. The log will rot away, but the crooked stump will still be there. Really unstable ground won't have pistol butt trees, just leaners and down trees. The only leaning I see is caused by stuff other than light. Trees will grow branches on the side with the most light exposure so don't have to lean to the light. Thin a stand, and a few years later, the space will be closed up by the crowns of the trees left in the stand.


----------



## smokechase II (Jul 7, 2008)

*I sure don't know this*

*"Trees will grow branches on the side with the most light exposure so don't have to lean to the light."*

The big old fir in your neck of the woods.
When their high limbs are on one side.
Doesn't that have the possibility of 'influencing' the lean in that direction, not just by their weight but also by those heavy limbs pulling the stem that way?

===================

Where is the Pollman stump photo exhibit ?? ???? ?????


----------



## Ekka (Jul 7, 2008)

Oh please, dont tell me I now gotta straighten out this mess of confusing blubberings!

Tell me, what makes you stand straight?

Is it your skeleton?
Is it your muscles?
Is it the fluid in your inner ear?

Or a combination of many things including diet so you dont have bow legs and rickets. 

Well, think about these words.

Apical dominance and auxin
Phototropism
Geotropism

As far as wind goes again not all are affected, Norfolk pines dominate the landscape of many seaside places, usually very straight whilst other trees have the windswept look.

Now honestly you blokes, time to knock it off with all this banter. Go do something useful.


----------



## ray benson (Jul 7, 2008)

Thanks Ekka,
A little more research.
Types of tropisms
Chemotropism, movement or growth in response to chemicals 
Gravitropism (or geotropism), movement or growth in response to gravity 
Hydrotropism, movement or growth in response to moisture or water 
Heliotropism, movement or growth in response to sunlight 
Phototropism, movement or growth in response to lights or colors of light 
Thermotropism, movement or growth in response to temperature 
Thigmotropism, movement or growth in response to touch or contact


----------



## Ekka (Jul 7, 2008)

Hey Ray, you'll give these boys a headache!


----------



## weenieroaster (Jul 7, 2008)

Ekka; Go do something useful. :laugh: :D[/QUOTE said:


> Like cutting down said trees.


----------



## ray benson (Jul 7, 2008)

The more we learn - the more we realize how little we know.


----------



## Ekka (Jul 7, 2008)

Exactly.

Some here reckon they make better money cutting them down than writing essays on them, good for them, I dont have a problem with that.

Cut away boys, it's just a crop.


----------



## MARCELL8733 (Jul 7, 2008)

*Notching*

AWAYS HAVE A ROPE OR CABLE FROM A CRANE TRUCK WHEN FALLING LARGE TREES :agree2: :monkey:


----------



## 2dogs (Jul 7, 2008)

MARCELL8733 said:


> AWAYS HAVE A ROPE OR CABLE FROM A CRANE TRUCK WHEN FALLING LARGE TREES :agree2: :monkey:



Uh, OK. But wait, I am a mile from the road. Now what. I guess technique is of no value.


----------



## Haywire Haywood (Jul 7, 2008)

Climb it with your light-n-agile 076 and delimb the side opposite the direction you want it to fall. Don't forget your ladder and video camera.  

Ian


----------



## smokechase II (Jul 7, 2008)

*Ekkatropism*

Sap like behavior coming from down under.

Gosh. Relax a bit.

Go round the front of your rakers.

Don't be a Norfolk everyday. Bend in the wind gracefully.


----------



## Ekka (Jul 8, 2008)

Is that smoke in your eye or you just shedding a tear?


----------



## slowp (Jul 8, 2008)

Hokay, I'm slow, hence the name. It finally dawned on me...the light went on, etc. Yes, the branches grow best and most on the side exposed to light and that affects the _falling_ lean. But, since I'm not a faller, and merely a logger harasser, I was thinking of leaning lean, the lean caused by wind, dirt movement, getting nudged by equipment, etc. My bad...


----------



## smokechase II (Jul 8, 2008)

*Not Bad*

"Is that smoke in your eye or you just shedding a tear?"

You're coming along, showing some compassion.
Well done.
Hope for you yet.
WHO SAYS AN ENTIRE NATION HAS THE GENES OF A CRIMINAL (based on the bitterness of one)?

-----------

We do have more smoke here today. Possibly from California. Our trees and all plants lean away from Cal. Generally.


----------



## Ekka (Jul 9, 2008)

Based on what, your smokey perception and 17 pages of waffle ... you could always apply here for a job that suits you.

Smokechase dream job


----------



## smokechase II (Jul 9, 2008)

*That's generous*

Ekka:

Way to be positive.

It is so much nicer when you use your words in a positive manner.

That can help others like me be a better person too.

I'm not going to respond in a "if your brains were gas there wouldn't be enough to cut through a dead palm tree" manner when you're intellectual rather than snotty.

Thanks again.


----------



## RiverRat2 (Jul 9, 2008)

*Comon fellas Egos getting in the way????*

:agree2: Where's all the Love here??????


----------



## abohac (Jul 9, 2008)

IchWarriorMkII said:


> I vote you continue being an ####### and not providing any useful information to this situation.



I don't know, I found all those diplomas (or whatever those things were) very useful. I've read them and re-read them (thought maybe all of that knowledge would rub off on me!).


----------



## Ekka (Jul 9, 2008)

RiverRat2 said:


> :agree2: Where's all the Love here??????



Oh Ole Smokey Bear had a hard day and is just trying to paint people into pigeon holes, hibernation is months off yet so you'll likely see a few more episodes. :monkey:


----------



## slowp (Jul 9, 2008)

smokechase II said:


> *[I===================
> 
> Where is the Pollman stump photo exhibit ?? ???? ?????[/QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## nilzlofgren (Jul 9, 2008)

For anyone that doesn't know, Theres a book by D Douglass Dent. Its called "Professional timber falling." Erick recommended it, its a good read on the subject.


----------



## Ekka (Jul 10, 2008)

nilzlofgren .... :agree2:  

If Erick recommended it then it must be good.


----------



## HolmenTree (Jul 11, 2008)

I'm not trying to blow my own horn here, but referring to the information I gave in my post #259. That information came from about 4 different Arbormaster Training courses I took some years back, costing me around $3,ooo. Free to you guys. Alot of this stuff you won't find in Dents' book.

Willard


----------



## smokechase II (Jul 11, 2008)

*Arbormaster horn*

"*Don't forget to include the short stubby's in there somewhere, sometime."*

In that famous post #259 you first referenced a brief prior post of mine.

Part of that I included in bold above.

-----------------------

Not to go into a full all out discussion again.
Everybody I know that has had to deal with a short (say 25 ft high) and larger diameter (say 4 ft to 6 ft diameter) staub is a believer in 50% faces.

Of course you probably already know my points.
That the knowledge acquired from dealing with one tree can carry over to other trees that may be only partially as 'extreme'.
That the location of the fulcrum in these short staubs is an excellant illustration of its importance.


There hasn't been a response to this question yet. Sigh.
Either in my original asking or your repeat.
So let's just drop that question.


--------------------

HolmenTree:

The one question I'd like to ask; In the four arbormaster sessions you attended, how often was fulcrum location addressed?

Thanks


----------



## smokechase II (Jul 11, 2008)

*D Doug Dent and Soren Erikkson*

Dent is now teaching things like the bore cut has a lot of advantages with a somewhat strong emphasis.
He just emphasizes a wide face, in the 50 degree range, and not the open face cuts. 

He sees a lot lawsuit court time and investigations.
I don't know of anyone who is brought in as an expert witness as often and his investigation experience is also of note. 
This is important from the standpoint that it has forced Dent to change opinions on things like the Humboldt etc.

Dent is big on standing in a vertical posture, (with conventional faces versus other undercuts this is easier), to look up and also the faller presents a smaller target.

Dent likes the boring back cuts as they not only reduce barber chair risk, (this was in his book back in the day), but also are easier to make a precise hinge and most of all at this point in the investigation period of his life - control the moment of release usually with precision. The reason this has become important to him is what shows up in the fatality investigations.

It is a shame Dent hasn't updated his book or videos.
The book was fine for its time. Actually pretty good for then.
The videos are poor for any time. Shooting and editing wasn't as easy as now and the movies show a lot of poor cutting by Dent.

Dent seldom cuts now and really hasn't but very rarely in front of a group like one of his certification sessions for at least 20+ years.

***************

An interesting bit of trivia is the GOL preacher - Soren Erikkson (sp?) - is also a short guy like Dent. Napeleon syndrome.

Soren showed up in the Spokane area in the late 1980's with a 'boy do I have something to show you guys' attitude. He didn't go to work there for a few years and learn. Learn what works and what he could use to help. He just came in there with the right amount of arrogance to get laughed out of the area. Napeleon hurts all of us at times, short or tall. He could have made a couple of good points and done some good but he didn't have that ability.

=============

I don't know of anyone currently putting out a balanced 360 falling presentation. The folks in BC appear to be doing the best on the West Coast of N America.



It seems clear that Arbormaster has merit, but is too narrow in focus to be judged as complete.

Whatever you guys reading this think about cutting, be sure and stay open minded. If you go to one car dealership you get one line. With a touch of humor I hope you consider other than just one face dimension.

If there is anyone telling you to stick with just one cutting technique, don't buy that car.


----------



## HolmenTree (Jul 11, 2008)

You made some good points there Smokechase and if you say that my post #259 is famous, I then take that as a compliment. I'm sure you learned something from it. Yes I agree Dent is a little outdated but he had some excellent common sense basics.
On the Arbormaster guys. They are what introduced me to climbing and I can't thank them enough for it. Arbormaster Canada[who I trained with] owned by DWayne Neustaeter,is now called Arboriculture Canada Training & Education Ltd. [www.ArborCanada.com]. He broke away from the Arbormaster theme a few years back and is now sponsered by Stihl Canada. When I took my last chainsaw course through him back in 2001, he and his business partner could barely do a good job handfiling a sawchain at the stump, but the information they gathered from around the world was amazing to say the least. DWayne and Norm always kept an open mind and never had that Soren Erickson superior attitude. They always hoped to learn something from their students as they often told us. And I guess that is how their training approach worked for me.Because I told them alot of my tried & proven ideas I felt as a student I was no less then them.We had women in one class who only used a saw only once or twice in their lives and by the end of the day they were setting up their notches and making their backcuts with plunge cuts,with a 70 cc saw. The last course I took through them was Tree Dynamics & Structural Risk Assessment in 2004[very good]. This fall I'm taking 2 of their latest courses, Hazard & Danger Tree Cutting & Falling and Arborist Technical Rigging [5 days total].

On that short stub tree [carrot I call them] you talked about Smokechase, Yes I totally agree without the trees top for leverage to get it to fall ,you can drive those wedges all day if using a shallow notch. Bring the fulcrum location back as far as you can[ if there is not too much side lean] and use the offset weight to your advantage. With its short leverage there is less danger of it breaking its hinge and falling sideways. Yes we did talk about this 50% fulcrum location in those Arbormaster courses, we were reminded of the the extra danger of a lateral root ripping out of the ground and smacking you if you didn't get out of the way when the tree started to fall.

Willard


----------



## Tzed250 (Jul 12, 2008)

Smoke, you make good points, especially the one about keeping an open mind. 

I was personally trained by Soren Eriksson, and I found his methods and ideas very helpful. You saying that Dent has embraced the idea of the bored backcut shows that the American and Scandinavian felling ideologies are starting to draw together. Maybe if the folks in the PNW had overlooked what may have been a cultural conflict the sharing of ideas could have progressed at a faster rate.


----------



## smokechase II (Jul 12, 2008)

*Confrlicts*

Tzed 250:

Dent isn't a public relations specialist.

Understood.

----------------

Soren has shown less ability to adapt.

List what he has changed his mind on with regard to falling technique over the years.
To my knowledge the only thing he has changed is the GOL term itself. Logging is not regarded as a game out West.


----------



## HolmenTree (Jul 12, 2008)

Tzed250 said:


> Smoke, you make good points, especially the one about keeping an open mind.
> 
> I was personally trained by Soren Eriksson, and I found his methods and ideas very helpful. You saying that Dent has embraced the idea of the bored backcut shows that the American and Scandinavian felling ideologies are starting to draw together. Maybe if the folks in the PNW had overlooked what may have been a cultural conflict the sharing of ideas could have progressed at a faster rate.



I agree! I have some old Soren Eriksson training videos and must admit I still go back to them every now and then. His 6 point limbing technique is priceless. 
As Smokechase just commented, " The folks in BC appear to be doing the best on the west coast of N America." Thats because BC has the highest number of Scandinavian loggers in North America. These guys would feel right at home with Soren.

Willard


----------



## smokechase II (Jul 12, 2008)

*50% Face*

So "*Yes we did talk about this 50% fulcrum location in those Arbormaster courses*" means we can agree that a face different than 25% is not only acceptable but necessary (at times)?

I'm sorry, I missed that in your previous posts in this thread.

*****************

So just between us, no one else has to agree, the depth (not height) of the undercut should be decided on a tree by tree basis?

The 1/3rd general rule could be better stated as the 1/4 to 1/2 general rule.


----------



## smokechase II (Jul 12, 2008)

*Hazard & Danger Tree Cutting & Falling*

When you take that course this fall I'd ask you to observe how often the instructors look up.
I personally think it should be done on all trees as good habits are hard to break, if you will.

Do they emphasize and require completing all cuts from one side of the tree to avoid dangers on the off-side? Hopefully the students would be required to pass a field test demonstrating this level of ambidexterity.

Do they teach that the lookout concept for falling is unacceptably dangerous as there is not adequate time for lookout recognition, communication, cutter recognition and then cutter egress? (For instance: an unobstructed object falling from 50 ft will take less than 2 seconds to hit the ground and will be going 40 mph at impact.)

Do they emphasize long bars from the safety aspects of being able to complete falling cuts without having to match, (avoiding the bad side altogether and less time in the danger zone), and being just that much further from bucks on bound logs etc.

Do they warn against boring back-cuts in rotten wood?

Do they explain that in most dead trees any perceived need for a high face is ruled out for two obvious reasons:
1) The hinge wouldn't hold anyway,
2) Any additional time at the stump, any additional focus on the cuts is a death wish eventually?

Hopefully an escape stance, high stump is located where finishing cuts can be made from the escape side and knees are slightly bent for prompt exit.

The quickest safest escapes are the ones where the tree is just tapped over with a wedge, no hard pounding - fulcrum placement, back-cut location and wedging technique come together with a little luck, saw is off and to the side and one more tap gets you the second best escape possible.

That the 45 degree escape angle is not taught as an absolute rule. Often the best escapes are to get behind an obstacle of strength and if that is at 100 degrees even take the safest spot. 

Perhaps a discussion on utilizing the face to remove a defect in the tree and any effect it could have on the fall?

************

The five stages of dead and how they can affect the felling event?



Just food for thought.


----------



## HolmenTree (Jul 12, 2008)

smokechase II said:


> So "*Yes we did talk about this 50% fulcrum location in those Arbormaster courses*" means we can agree that a face different than 25% is not only acceptable but necessary (at times)?
> 
> I'm sorry, I missed that in your previous posts in this thread.
> 
> ...



No, let me clarify Arbormaster warned about the danger of the 50% fulcrum location. In my previous posts I said if it don't fall then pull it over. In my last post I just agreed with you so you would get over it. But NOW YOU WANT BLOOD. In my urban tree removal I would never use the 50%, I would go by the book and pull it over. Yes I agreed thinking I was talking to a logger with a faller mindset. Sure in the middle of the wilderness make the 50% notch on the stub, if it falls sideways who cares, only the chokerman might get upset.But you never answered my earlier question Smokechase "Were you ever a faller or any kind of logger?"

By the way shouldn't you be fighting fire in neighboring California? Even Googilet who is 63 is there running a dozer helping out .

Willard


----------



## smokechase II (Jul 12, 2008)

*50% er*

"*No, let me clarify Arbormaster warned about the danger of the 50% fulcrum location. In my previous posts I said if it don't fall then pull it over. In my last post I just agreed with you so you would get over it. But NOW YOU WANT BLOOD. In my urban tree removal I would never use the 50%, I would go by the book and pull it over. Yes I agreed thinking I was talking to a logger with a faller mindset. Sure in the middle of the wilderness make the 50% notch on the stub, if it falls sideways who cares, only the chokerman might get upset.But you never answered my earlier question Smokechase "Were you ever a faller or any kind of logger?"*

=============

Let's talk about the dangers of pulling over a tree without an adequate initial part of the release. B-A-R-B-E-R C-H-A-I-R.

The reason for doing the 50% face is to avoid the side fall.

Step by step.
1) Straight up and down tree,
2) Very short as the top was broken off,
3) Large diameter.

Physics dictate that the force needed to drop this tree mean fulcrum location is important so that less force is needed to get it to go over. Balance because there is so much resistance here taking the fulcrum to at or near the balance point is what gets the tree over without cables or jacks.
The reason these trees fell in this manner are *the very least likely* to go sideways is because of the amount of initial release needed (the face) to get them to go at all. In fact, a weaker face could well have a tendency to get a sideways thing going. Certainly not the other way around.

The caveat of course at the other end of the scale, 50% face - balanced tree - regular height - smaller diameter, could well mean the tree goes over with just the face cut and B-A-R-B-E-R C-H-A-I-R potential is certainly there.

I'm curious as to why all those Scandinavian loggers in BC subscribe to this?
Could it be that it is not a genetic but a geographic thing?

*****************

Never a logger.
Never an arborist.
Just a 40 year fireline (fires in 17 states and also cutting in two more, hazard tree faller and occasional thinner in the odd winter. (We call stand spacing up to 10” dia *thinning*.)


----------



## HolmenTree (Jul 12, 2008)

smokechase II said:


> When you take that course this fall I'd ask you to observe how often the instructors look up.
> I personally think it should be done on all trees as good habits are hard to break, if you will.
> 
> Do they warn against boring back-cuts in rotten wood?
> ...


----------



## smokechase II (Jul 12, 2008)

*I wasn't trying to draw blood*

I thought the way you worded it that arbormaster acknowleged that need.

Sorry.



For those reading this little skirmish. Look at the possibilty of any one of us going elsewhere and cutting.

Time to learn, right?

Please don't assume that what you learned to be true in a classroom, then found to be true (at least for the most part), in your locale to be fact somewhere else.

Time to learn, right?

============

Readers:

For your consideration:

Avoid side falling snafu's by utilizing an adequate face. Utilizing the balance part of the complex event called falling gives you better directional control. (Within limits - don't go 1/2 face falling on heavy back leaners etc.)


----------



## smokechase II (Jul 12, 2008)

*Could you get some photos or literature*

of open face cutters looking up or cutting on the off side?

I haven't been able to find any.

Thanks

Back to "Do they emphasize and require completing all cuts from one side of the tree to avoid dangers on the off-side? Hopefully the students would be required to pass a field test demonstrating this level of ambidexterity."

Have you been required to do that in any of their programs?


----------



## smokechase II (Jul 12, 2008)

*Regarding post 259*

I learned a couple things from 259.

I never thought or had been trained to look for a lime green color in the sapwood. My experience is about 80% some level of dead. I'm actually happy with even droughtish timber with live fuel moistures down to 100-120%. 

I had never thought of finishing a falling cut with a pole saw. That is a nice trick available to the arborist but not the faller up on a hillside.
I have used poles (cut a handy LP nearby) as lever arms in trees with extensive burn damage. Picture a tree with little holding wood left and it has burned completely through in two spots at the base. Too dangerous to even walk up to. No faller could even consider making a cut, period. Place a 40 foot lever and you're that much farther away. Both are great safety ideas.

The rest was dealt with in the legendary post 263. I'm sure you've learned from it. Look, if you don't like that arrogance go look in the mirror.

{The Northern Hemisphere SE lean thing is under further review. So far I can’t find any verification from cutters or observations here. I don’t doubt that you are correct at that location.}


----------



## HolmenTree (Jul 12, 2008)

Smokechase you make alot of good points here ,but we are going in circles now.
We don't want to lose sight of the post #1 where the unexperienced asked about the 1/3 rule. I added something ,you added something but we don't want the unexperienced making 50% notches. People get killed everyday by falling trees and some are very experienced. 

I'm suggesting to the members here who want to expand their techniques safely is spend a little money and take a hands on certified course and they will find it is the best money they will ever spend. Not just reading a book.

From your writing I kind of figured you were never a production logger , the bits and pieces seemed to come from many years of conversing with pro fallers. But I must give you credit you could of fooled me fom your stubborn gung ho attitude, you would have made a good logger.

Willard


----------



## smokechase II (Jul 12, 2008)

*Odd piece of trivia*

Dead trees, especially if somewhat tall and skinny (say 100 ft dead Lodgepole), will vibrate if cut with a hungry chain or bore cut period. You can watch this from away and it is unnerving.

Oftentimes we focus on pounding wedges as the vibration that loosens a widowmaker. Think chain vibration too.

Full comp chains with high rakers are desireable and I'd suggest you look for this vibration in any dead you're dropping to see if you want to avoid all bore cuts in a particular species and/or stage of dead.

Again, don't limit yourself to one cutting technique.

Every tree and especially snag is different.


----------



## smokechase II (Jul 12, 2008)

*I would never had made a good logger*

Fell in love with jumping out of planes to get to fires. Too sweet of a deal. Plus I got paid to work in all those places. Even decent sized spruce in Alberta once upon a time. 

Another good point made in the NW for the inexperienced cutters is to avoid bore cutting. Kickback is the most common form of chain saw injury and no sense putting a newbie in that world either. Particularly with all that concentration sucking their brains dry in the falling cuts.

A primary discussion topic out here is Dent on one side going we need to be doing more bore cutting, (within limits) and others like Pollman saying that he only ever had to bore a handful of trees in his big-time falling career and that the bore cut is too dangerous for most ...............

I'm certainly not afraid to ask loggers. In a way you're made to if you travel enough. You have to do this even though you may have expertise in a particular area, (hazard trees for me), over the person you are chatting with as local knowledge is so important. Just because you understand the hazards overall doesn't mean one cannot pick up a couple concepts/tricks from any cutter elsewhere.


----------



## HolmenTree (Jul 12, 2008)

Smokechase you should go back fire fighting it sounds like you really miss it,I met a few smoke jumpers in my time ,had some interesting talks. They were trying to get down from a tree and I was trying to get up.
When I worked for Stihl in the late 80s I ran into alot of fallers from all over,a lot of PNW cutters looking for work in the interior , But what surprised me the most was lack of skill these guys [even with years of experience] had sharpening their chain. Yes the vibration factor either the chicot will kill you or the white finger will you stop you in your tracks. If you can't properly handfile don't attempt borecutting. Maybe these guys relied too much on the grinder back on the coast.

You should write a book Smokechase on timberfalling, my advice is get a good proof reader ,from your legendary post #263 I don't think I understood a thing you said ,sounded like a bunch of westcoast lingo LOL.

Willard


----------



## Tzed250 (Jul 12, 2008)

smokechase II said:


> Tzed 250:
> 
> Dent isn't a public relations specialist.
> 
> ...




Maybe instead of slamming the training you should take it to see if you can learn something. Or maybe you know it all. 

I agree, the GOL falling techniques are biased toward smaller wood, as found in Scandinavia and the eastern US. Soon, there will be no more big trees to cut, and the small tree harvesting techniques will have more widespread appeal. 

Maybe you should come cut some eastern hardwoods. Then you would find out that logging is not a game in the east either. The name "Game of Logging" comes from the training method used. CRT, competitive response training. Each class is a competition. The students are more involved with the learning when there is something on the line.

You may not only shop at one car dealership, but you think the only place to drive is the PNW.


----------



## smokechase II (Jul 12, 2008)

*Been there*

Tzed250:

I have cut hardwoods in the East. Only six states worth and just on fires for short 1 - 2 week durations mostly but I do understand that while on flatter ground they generally are tougher to much tougher to fall. Leans and limbs. Complexity and tremendous variance in woods.

At this point I would never take any GOL class. Seriously! I have been shown that technique twice by two who have been through it. They were reasonable guys who didn't mandate it. That is an important concept. Our discussions were based on this cut has a lot in merit in this situation but you'd sure want to avoid it in that situation. Intellectual - seeking the truth with good friends.

It’s not just the bitterness that you guys thrive on that is a big turn off to GOL. I come from a falling world that is way more dangerous than you do. Dealing with dead trees that have been recently and perhaps still are burning is a step up from the hardwoods of the East Coast. With enjoyment of family how could I possibly use a cut that requires stump focus so badly?

I certainly would enjoy some comparison cutting utilizing the different techniques.

I have purchased and read Tim Ards e-Book. I value it for several small diameter falling techniques that are apparently not understood out here. However, overall it is a difficult sell as application to larger trees and snags is limited or not at all. Its kind of like a Michael Moore movie, it has valid points but there it lies because of "the overstatements". It is hard to get someone to pay attention when they are laughing.
My only success in showing that there is merit to some of those cuts is to show one technique in the field at a time in a good scenario for its sell. I don't associate those cuts with GOL/Open Face to avoid all that baggage. No mention of where I learned it is best.

My problem with the GOL/Open Face world is that at the instructor level there has been some sort of indoctrination mantra my way or the Hi-way thing that creates closed minds among many students. The "NOW YOU WANT BLOOD" mentality.

****************

I was in charge of two crews, 5 engine crews and some fallers on a fire near Sisters Oregon three summers ago first night. One crew was from Missouri and was a mix of FS, BLM and Fish / Feathers. They had three cutters and were Open Face types.
Snags were being dropped for a fuel break and the White Fir there are an especially bad scenario for the faller. They are much worse and denser than the dead LP I usually work in. Lots of rot throughout and plenty of chances to get hit. Typical to my experience none could cut and look up. Bent over posture, concentrating on the stump their upper backs and necks were additional target areas and I guess that had never been pointed out. {There was no problem with bore cut vibration due to the softness of what was formerly wood.} 
In my 13 years as a Jumper spotter I handed out two hairline fractures and on the fireline I supervised thousands over the years, (not 2 million) with never an injury more serious than a sprained ankle.
I couldn't let that looking down ALL the time go on in a virtual dense forest of dead rotten white fir. Its not that I care about people I just wanted to keep my record almost clean. I explained the nature of danger in those dead trees and put them in a safer area. The guy who was very good with his saw I remember looking him in the eye and saying. “I don't want you to get laughed at". (There were pro cutters nearby.) He didn't react negatively. That moment of eye contact I know he realized that we were fellow Forest Service and that he wasn't in Kansas anymore. {Boy, that outta heat up that game sports fans.}
In their defense this was one of the worst places you could have put anyone, they didn't bring their own saws and were running different equipment that had just been issued and they had no experience in any setting like that.

-------------------

To anyone listening. Be ready to learn, especially when you go elsewhere.


----------



## HolmenTree (Jul 12, 2008)

Maybe we're all learning something here but then maybe not. At this stage of my life I openily admit I'm willing and able to learn more. Sure we all have pride in our own little worlds of what we do best but we should keep open minds and see if we can learn something from the other guy. Next fall those 2 courses I'll take may not teach me alot on what I already know and do but I'll keep my mind working to maybe pickup some new usefull information and maybe even help another arborist student, because as arborists we try to treat each other like brothers, yes we're a tight knit group too just like firefighters and loggers.

My own transition from a faller, sawmilling, and then to an arborist has been very exciting for me and I'm proud that I never got stuck in a rut with only one outlook in life. Falling trees as a firefighter, logger or an arborist have their own special merits and limitations, every man must know his limitations.


----------



## smokechase II (Jul 12, 2008)

*Well said*

"*Falling trees as a firefighter, logger or an arborist have their own special merits and limitations, every man must know his limitations."*

I don't have access to the report but Dent investigated a fireline falling fatality in either Arizona or New Mexico last year. The deceased was from the NW and he took on a tree that was turned down by a prior cutter.

A similar event on a fire I was on in 1994, it happened a week before our team got there, and that cutter who said yes went to a wheel chair. We were told no hope of use of legs and I don't know of his status now.

============

There are trees that no one can fall safely. Just because you got away with it before doesn't mean your life is worth that little.

There are also trees that I can't fall that others can. 

All the Best


----------



## HolmenTree (Jul 12, 2008)

That reminds me I gotta spend more time in the Arborist 101 forum where I belong. It was good talking to you Smokechase ,you are 1 hell of a man in your own field ,I'd like to meet you one day. I'm outta here, all the best!

Willard


----------

