# Evolution Of The Humboldt Face Cut



## madhatte (Sep 21, 2009)

I was looking through this book, copyrighted 1973, at my folks' house the other day, and noted from the photographs that very few of the loggers in those days were using Humboldts, except in Oregon. The WA, BC, ID, and AK sections all showed predominately conventional face cuts. Today, of course, nearly every pro uses the Humboldt almost exclusively. Does anybody know how this practice spread and when? The why is obvious enough; I just don't have any idea of the time line.


----------



## clearance (Sep 21, 2009)

They used the conventional because they had to. Pretty hard to cut up with an axe. The Humboldt is better because the undercut is taken out of the stump, not the log. Also, the tree slides off and will not come back.

When saws got lighter, the Humbolt became the standard.


----------



## madhatte (Sep 21, 2009)

I'm well familiar with the reasoning behind the different kinds of face cuts. 

However, it had not occurred to me that saw weight would be such a factor in felling technique. The pictures I saw of guys cutting in the 1971-1973 era had them using big Macs and Stihls mostly, though I think I ID'd a Homelite as well. Those are ~20 lb saws dry, with extra weight added proportional to the bar/chain combo as well as fuel and oil. That makes them about twice as heavy as modern saws. 

Sometime in the last 35 years, both of these changes occurred. Mike Acres' site does a great job of detailing the evolution of the chainsaw. Where can I go to read up on the parallel evolution of the rest of the equipment and procedures in the timber industry?


----------



## Gologit (Sep 22, 2009)

madhatte said:


> I'm well familiar with the reasoning behind the different kinds of face cuts.
> 
> However, it had not occurred to me that saw weight would be such a factor in felling technique. The pictures I saw of guys cutting in the 1971-1973 era had them using big Macs and Stihls mostly, though I think I ID'd a Homelite as well. Those are ~20 lb saws dry, with extra weight added proportional to the bar/chain combo as well as fuel and oil. That makes them about twice as heavy as modern saws.
> 
> Sometime in the last 35 years, both of these changes occurred. Mike Acres' site does a great job of detailing the evolution of the chainsaw. Where can I go to read up on the parallel evolution of the rest of the equipment and procedures in the timber industry?



Try listening to old loggers. The best information is very seldom found in books.


----------



## 056 kid (Sep 22, 2009)

madhatte said:


> I'm well familiar with the reasoning behind the different kinds of face cuts.
> 
> However, it had not occurred to me that saw weight would be such a factor in felling technique. The pictures I saw of guys cutting in the 1971-1973 era had them using big Macs and Stihls mostly, though I think I ID'd a Homelite as well. Those are ~20 lb saws dry, with extra weight added proportional to the bar/chain combo as well as fuel and oil. That makes them about twice as heavy as modern saws.
> 
> Sometime in the last 35 years, both of these changes occurred. Mike Acres' site does a great job of detailing the evolution of the chainsaw. Where can I go to read up on the parallel evolution of the rest of the equipment and procedures in the timber industry?



As far as heavy old saws go, in my experiences, once you get the old girl dogged in and makin headway in an undercut, you can let the powerhead weight do your work, you can even push on to the bottom of the pistol grip...


This would all be pullin up on the pistol grip with a saginaw face.
workin against Mr. Isaac newton's theories... 


I like how the pies fall right out when the cutting is complete..


----------



## Greystoke (Sep 22, 2009)

Gologit said:


> Try listening to old loggers. The best information is very seldom found in books.



Good Advice


----------



## madhatte (Sep 22, 2009)

That is indeed good advice, and I will do exactly that.


----------



## Jacob J. (Sep 22, 2009)

The Humboldt became the standard here in late 40's/early 50's with the advent of "modern" saws. There's several reasons for this but the main one is stump shot. The closing face of the Humboldt undercut acts as its own safeguard against stump shot, which is important on steep ground and big timber. On flat ground it isn't as much of a concern and you can get slightly more wood out of a conventional face.


----------



## CanadianCarGuy (Sep 22, 2009)

Definately safer and more economical to use this technique. However without a bit of a step between the undercut and backcut, you loose any extra safety benefits that the humbolt cut has; especially if one is cutting the tree off the stump (steering the tree, or not paying attention). Sometimes if you are falling in heavy winds and the tree gets pushed into the standing timber as it is going over, the tree can still pop off the stump backwards, sometimes quite a few feet. Also the humbolt is actually EASIER to make, especially with the steeper ground we are working in today.


----------



## WidowMaker (Sep 22, 2009)

==== 

CPG, is that you???


----------



## Kiwilogger (Sep 23, 2009)

CanadianCarGuy said:


> However without a bit of a step between the undercut and backcut, you loose any extra safety benefits that the humbolt cut has;




Dead right. I see a lot of falling videos where people make this mistake with every cut nearly.

If your customer allows a "cut face" then you lose less timber with a conventional scarf. In NZ, all timber, apart from veneer logs, and some pruned stuff, all sawlogs are allowed a 6" cut face. That is, the remnant of the scarf from a conventional cut, is allowed to be 6" in to the middle of the log, and no more than 12" down the log.


----------



## madhatte (Jul 24, 2010)

Here's an interesting video:

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/PcEto_Q8MlY&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/PcEto_Q8MlY&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Notice the block-out face and Humboldt undercut chopped out with axes!


----------



## RandyMac (Jul 24, 2010)

The oldest Humboldt stumps I have seen are on the Shively road, just south of Scotia, they date from the 1920s.


----------



## dingeryote (Jul 24, 2010)

This is nothing but a shameless bump to keep things on the first page.. hoping one of the golden age guys chimes in.

Thanks for a heck of a good thread Madhatte!

Stay safe!
Dingeryote


----------



## madhatte (Jul 24, 2010)

dingeryote said:


> This is nothing but a shameless bump to keep things on the first page



You got me!

(also, thanks, man!)



RandyMac said:


> The oldest Humboldt stumps I have seen are on the Shively road, just south of Scotia, they date from the 1920s.



OK, so how common was the practice then, and when/why was it used over the Saginaw/Conventional face back in the day?


----------



## RandyMac (Jul 25, 2010)

madhatte said:


> You got me!
> 
> (also, thanks, man!)
> 
> ...



It was common enough to see them while driving by at 30mph  Next time I go through there, I'll snap a pic.
They/we, used the Humboldt, or derivative for up the hill falling, it made sure the dammed thing would leave the stump.


----------



## komatsuvarna (Jul 25, 2010)

Great video Madhatte. Them guys had to be some tough son of a guns!!!!


----------

