# Optimal Bucking Software



## zkurtb (Jul 1, 2012)

Seems there ought to be some software to identify the optimal bucking of a bole, given all the variables of scale, mill prices, tree length and taper. 

It would be great in the field, using a handheld or smartphone, to plug in species, bole length, and diameter at a few locations, then the software would use the scale table (Scribner in my area) and mill price data for all the length & diameter options to calculate the optimal lengths to buck for best compensation from the mill. Granted the result would have to be adjusted for defects, but would be useful nonetheless.

Does this stuff exist?


----------



## Spotted Owl (Jul 1, 2012)

Yup. Use that smart phone to call the Boss and then buck how he says to. Only need to use the phone once and your done and good to go. If you are the Boss, use that smart phone and call the mill then buck how they want it. Then you done and back to work.

Or leave the smart phone in the truck and pack your gear and get to work the same way it's always done for the area your in. 

Unless you are in some pretty odd ball stuff there won't be enough price difference to worry about. Standard bucking and maybe poles and that should be about it.



Owl


----------



## slowp (Jul 1, 2012)

Spotted Owl is in the real world, and that's how it is done. 

In the virtual world, Oregon State had a computer program in 1990.


----------



## Gologit (Jul 1, 2012)

Spotted Owl said it right. If you're a faller the first piece of information you get on a job, other than your rate, is how they want everything bucked.

The price the mill is going to pay is already set before you cut the first tree.

And "bole" ? What's that?


----------



## GASoline71 (Jul 1, 2012)

One of these?







Gary


----------



## Gologit (Jul 1, 2012)

Naaahhhh..I was thinking more about that game with the big heavy ball with the holes in it that you roll down a lane and knock over some wooden things while drinking large quantities of beer and wearing silly looking shoes and a polyester shirt with your name on it.


----------



## RandyMac (Jul 1, 2012)

I have some bucking hardware.


----------



## Spotted Owl (Jul 1, 2012)

RandyMac said:


> I have some bucking hardware.



Be careful with that thing. A guy said one time if you spend to much time drive'in a beast like that, you will get iron molecules starting to attach to your testicles.

Maybe you might could use one of them lead X-Ray aprons, yup one of those and you could handle big yeller saws all day, if'in you was man enough. I don't think I would want to lug that around anymore than I absolutely had too. 



Owl


----------



## RandyMac (Jul 1, 2012)

Too late Spotty.


----------



## northmanlogging (Jul 1, 2012)

always call the mill first... every one of em is a little different. and i thought a bole was another name for a burl those funny looking things that hang off a tree like warts? and wood carvers go all wiggeldy over em and make 'bowls' out of em, of which the mill want nothing of, but don't ask me I failed English


----------



## hanniedog (Jul 1, 2012)

Shouldn't the ultimate software be located in the grey matter located between your ears.


----------



## Rounder (Jul 1, 2012)

zkurtb said:


> Seems there ought to be some software to identify the optimal bucking of a bole, given all the variables of scale, mill prices, tree length and taper.
> 
> It would be great in the field, using a handheld or smartphone, to plug in species, bole length, and diameter at a few locations, then the software would use the scale table (Scribner in my area) and mill price data for all the length & diameter options to calculate the optimal lengths to buck for best compensation from the mill. Granted the result would have to be adjusted for defects, but would be useful nonetheless.
> 
> Does this stuff exist?



My boss was telling me that something along those lines does exist in other countries, might have been NZ??

We're kind of behind the times around here in the US......Mill calls the big boss and changes log spec, he calls little boss and tells him, little boss doesn't tell us, and......., "Why the #### are you dumb ####s cutting those lenghths!? That changed a week ago!!

Where ever the hell the boss was talking about, within three days of a log spec change, they've got what they want rolling into the mill.....directly into the mill...no fooling around with a log yard.


----------



## wowzers (Jul 1, 2012)

I second what Rounder said, sort sheets seem to change every other day.


----------



## StihlKiwi (Jul 2, 2012)

Rounder said:


> My boss was telling me that something along those lines does exist in other countries, might have been NZ??
> 
> We're kind of behind the times around here in the US......Mill calls the big boss and changes log spec, he calls little boss and tells him, little boss doesn't tell us, and......., "Why the #### are you dumb ####s cutting those lenghths!? That changed a week ago!!
> 
> Where ever the hell the boss was talking about, within three days of a log spec change, they've got what they want rolling into the mill.....directly into the mill...no fooling around with a log yard.



A few years ago someone developed a set of 'smart' calipers for optimising stems, I can't remember the name of the tool right now though. I believe the logmaker had to walk each stem with the calipers, pushing the relevant button when knots, sweep or other defect was found, and the calipers could optimise the stem based on a set of grades and prices loaded onto them. I don't think it worked as well in practice as in theory, and value recovery wasn't as high as a well-trained logmaker with a tape and a piece of paper with a cutplan on it. Cutplans are usually revised once a week, or when demand for a particular grade increases

How many grades are typically cut in softwood operation in the states?


----------



## Samlock (Jul 2, 2012)

zkurtb said:


> Seems there ought to be some software to identify the optimal bucking of a bole, given all the variables of scale, mill prices, tree length and taper.
> 
> It would be great in the field, using a handheld or smartphone, to plug in species, bole length, and diameter at a few locations, then the software would use the scale table (Scribner in my area) and mill price data for all the length & diameter options to calculate the optimal lengths to buck for best compensation from the mill. Granted the result would have to be adjusted for defects, but would be useful nonetheless.
> 
> Does this stuff exist?



It does exist. Here the buyer gives you a list of desired lengths and diameters and percentages of each grade. The software is pretty simple, it's basically two matrixes, a value matrix and a distribution matrix. You can build the software at home using excel, if interested. Each cutter makes the bucking decisions in the brush. The harvester made bucking is software operated, but no, that wouldn't be practical for hand cutting. Just picture yourself stumbling in the slash, in rain or snow, eaten by them ##### bugs, a chainsaw in one hand and a smart phone in the other.

I just finished a job there was 6 lengths for pine saw logs alone to choose from, but that's no rocket science. With a little practice you'll eyeball quite accurately a bucking scenario before dropping. Tape measure is just giving it a courtesy sweep. And the distribution of lengths is a matter of enlightened guessing. Yes, once that Jack's head is a mesh, I think it makes a ware soft enough for optimized bucking.


----------



## zkurtb (Jul 2, 2012)

Gologit said:


> And "bole" ? What's that?


Bole _/bōl/_ 1. The trunk of a tree



Spotted Owl said:


> Use that smart phone to call the Boss and then buck how he says to.


Granted, the software is something more for the small forest owner that has the time, and wants to optimize compensation from the mill. Production loggers would use specs from the boss.



slowp said:


> In the virtual world, Oregon State had a computer program in 1990.


I had seen reference to that poking around the internet. Couldn't find where it was available though.



Samlock said:


> It does exist. Here the buyer gives you a list of desired lengths and diameters and percentages of each grade. The software is pretty simple, it's basically two matrixes, a value matrix and a distribution matrix. You can build the software at home using excel, if interested.



If it exists I'd sure appreciate info on where to find it, I'm too lazy to write it. 

If one were to tackle the job, yes, several matrices, one for each species price table, one for the Scale table (Scribner Decimal C here). Then enter species, bole length and sample diameters, say at 8' intervals. Software would have to run scenarios of different possible log lengths at various diameters calculated for scale and the price table, a rather dynamic process. I think it would take more than excel, at least for my excel skills.

This could possibly be simplified if a known taper factor by species for the locale could be used.



hanniedog said:


> Shouldn't the ultimate software be located in the grey matter located between your ears.


Indeed it is. But then again there are tools for a reason, hence chainsaws vs handsaws.:msp_w00t:



Spotted Owl said:


> Unless you are in some pretty odd ball stuff there won't be enough price difference to worry about. Standard bucking and maybe poles and that should be about it.


Here is a grey matter example analysis of a particular bole 63' long, 12" DBH, short logs. Options shown are 3x20'6 vs 3x16'6 + 1x12'6. Difference is $6.30 paid by the mill. Multiply that by 500 trees, it becomes significant.
Option 1: 61’6 = 3 x 20’6 @ $330; 20’6 x 11” = 80bf, 20’6 x 9” = 40bf, 20’6 x 6” = 20bf, TotBF=140 Tot$= 140*.33= $46.20	
Option 2: 62’0 = 3 x 16’6 @ $310, 1 x 12’6 @ $290; 16’6 x 11” = 70bf, 16’6 x 10" = 60bf, 16’6 x 7.5" = 30bf, 12’6 x 6” = 10bf, TotBF=170 Tot$=160*.31 + 10*.29 = $52.50

If it takes 10 minutes to measure the tree and enter into the software, the return on time spent in the above case is $38 per hour. $75 if it takes 5 minutes.


----------



## lmbrman (Jul 2, 2012)

The computer on most mechanical harvesters around here have software to read each log, the tree can be run thru once to read it, then a second time to buck it

If you are an independent logger balancing market decisions is a big part of making money, but if you are under contract to a mill, most of the product will go to their mill, although sometimes not, depending on markets. sometimes fewer decisions means more product on the landing, which is money in the pocket. 

Mileage will vary:hmm3grin2orange:


----------



## Samlock (Jul 2, 2012)

zkurtb said:


> If it exists I'd sure appreciate info on where to find it, I'm too lazy to write it.
> 
> If one were to tackle the job, yes, several matrices, one for each species price table, one for the Scale table (Scribner Decimal C here). Then enter species, bole length and sample diameters, say at 8' intervals. Software would have to run scenarios of different possible log lengths at various diameters calculated for scale and the price table, a rather dynamic process. I think it would take more than excel, at least for my excel skills.
> 
> This could possibly be simplified if a known taper factor by species for the locale could be used.



Well, the software here doesn't take sample diameters, but predicts the length and diameters on each theoretical points by modeling. Variables are tree species and diameter of the first log. I've got the modeling functions somewhere, but they only work with the local species here in Finland.

You caught me red handed. It's been years I've done matrices, and that was just a practice task. And I hated it. Sorry.

All in all. In reality computer operated bucking produces a bit worse result for the landowner in terms of saw log/pulp/leftover ratio. That's because the machine applies modeling. Knots, curves and other defects are always surprises. The machines just do it faster, but they're not as accurate as an experienced eye.



> Option 1: 61’6 = 3 x 20’6 @ $330; 20’6 x 11” = 80bf, 20’6 x 9” = 40bf, 20’6 x 6” = 20bf, TotBF=140 Tot$= 140*.33= $46.20
> Option 2: 62’0 = 3 x 16’6 @ $310, 1 x 12’6 @ $290; 16’6 x 11” = 70bf, 16’6 x 10" = 60bf, 16’6 x 7.5" = 30bf, 12’6 x 6” = 10bf, TotBF=170 Tot$=160*.31 + 10*.29 = $52.50



Once you memorize the measures, that's the kind of optimizing you'll learn to calculate in your head. And learn to see it while it's still standing.


----------



## Gologit (Jul 2, 2012)

I can see where the OP's idea would have merit. It might useful in multi species harvest where the grade/sort was really complicated. Some of the East coast boys might really like a program like that. Having five or six or more different species with several sorts for each must get aggravating.

I don't see where the type of work I usually do would benefit from the unnecessary complication involved. The mills call the shots and we respond accordingly. The spec changes are usually market driven but that's not something that we concern ourselves with in the woods. Nor should we have to.

Rounder was right about the lag time in getting the word to the woods crew. That happens. We see a whole day delay occasionally but they usually get the word to us pretty fast. They need to.

We can always tell how serious a situation is and how important the news is by watching how fast the forester or the side rod is driving and how far he's hunched over the steering wheel and how hard he slams the door when he gets out. :msp_rolleyes:


----------



## zkurtb (Jul 2, 2012)

lmbrman said:


> If you are an independent logger balancing market decisions is a big part of making money





Gologit said:


> I can see where the OP's idea would have merit. It might useful in multi species harvest where the grade/sort was really complicated.



A bit more background on the motivation. It may not apply to some markets or mill arrangements, but could benefit the independent operator. Here in north Idaho, there are 10 or so primary species of conifer. Each local mill has different prices by species and by delivered log length. Even picking one mill for all logs, there will be different prices by species and length. Then there is the interplay of scaling volume and prices and lengths, especially in the smaller 6-10" diameters. My above example analysis shows just a glimmer of this.



Samlock said:


> Well, the software here doesn't take sample diameters, but predicts the length and diameters on each theoretical points by modeling. Variables are tree species and diameter of the first log.


The software should be able to work using known taper rates and bark thickness (from sampling) for species within a locale. And I'd agree the total length to minimum SED (small end inside bark diameter, 5.6" here) should also be predictable. Given that, one probably only needs to plug in species and DBH (diameter at 4.5 feet, or 1.4 meters). Since it couldn't incorporate defects, it's results would be a suggestion, not be a substitute for the experienced eye.

Some rainy day, maybe...


----------



## OregonSawyer (Jul 2, 2012)

Just thumbed through the OSU BUCK booklet today. They're readily available at the University. My personal opinion is that there is far too much to gain when bucking for grade that often times you would be wasting time punching data into a handheld. [This is coming from a math/engineering nerd, but also a sawyer]


----------



## madhatte (Jul 3, 2012)

lmbrman said:


> The computer on most mechanical harvesters around here have software to read each log, the tree can be run thru once to read it, then a second time to buck it



^^

This

A bucker running a saw don' need no steenking programms

A harvester? Might just. I can see how to integrate a regression based on top and bottom diameters to maximize scaled volume. It might not work, but I can see how to do it.


----------



## Gologit (Jul 3, 2012)

lmbrman said:


> The computer on most mechanical harvesters around here have software to read each log, the tree can be run thru once to read it, then a second time to buck it
> 
> If you are an independent logger balancing market decisions is a big part of making money, but if you are under contract to a mill, most of the product will go to their mill, although sometimes not, depending on markets. sometimes fewer decisions means more product on the landing, which is money in the pocket.
> 
> Mileage will vary:hmm3grin2orange:



Same with a stroker delimber or a dangle head processor on the landing...one pass to delimb, one pass to buck...or sometimes just one pass for both. Sort and deck or hand off to the loading shovel in as few moves as possible.

Every time you handle a log it costs you money. Every time you handle one unnecessarily or take time you really don't need to be taking, you're throwing money away.


----------



## zkurtb (Jul 3, 2012)

lmbrman said:


> If you are an independent logger balancing market decisions is a big part of making money …





Gologit said:


> I can see where the OP's idea would have merit. It might useful in multi species harvest where the grade/sort was really complicated.


A bit more background on the motivation behind the idea. It may not apply to all markets, or all operations, but useful to the smaller independent not tied to a mill. Here in north Idaho we have nine or so species of merchantable conifer. Each mill has different prices, and within each mill’s price sheet there are differences by species and log length. Couple that to the length/volume parameters of the scaling system and it can get involved quickly. The example analysis I posted earlier is just a glimmer.



Samlock said:


> Well, the software here doesn't take sample diameters, but predicts the length and diameters on each theoretical points by modeling. Variables are tree species and diameter of the first log.


Good points. The software could incorporate local taper values and bark thickness by species. And it could probably predict the total length to minimum SED given the taper values and DBH. Then all that would need to be entered for a bole is species and DBH. Should take about 2 minutes. The result would not take into account defects, thus would have to be evaluated and modified by an experienced eye. 

Maybe some rainy day…


----------



## slowp (Jul 3, 2012)

You also need to factor in the sale administrator when working on Forest Service ground. If you are longbutting sound logs to get a better log for better pay, you'll hear about it.

The logger is in between two powerful entities....the USFS and the Mill. We've actually scaled up longbutts and had the purchaser pay for the volume left on the ground. Back in the olden days, we even had the logger go back and yard up all the longbutts and scaled them. 

When old growth was being logged, the butt log was bucked to a 40 foot + trim length. It wasn't the length that would be manufactured into boards, it was the longest acceptable length that the contract allowed and when scaled, the mill got a lot of free wood. That meant a lot when they were paying $600/mbf stumpage.


----------



## madhatte (Jul 3, 2012)

Hrmm. I'll occasionally mark a biggun knowing the short-butt will be left so that I can meet CWD requirements. It's all in the planning.


----------



## slowp (Jul 3, 2012)

madhatte said:


> Hrmm. I'll occasionally mark a biggun knowing the short-butt will be left so that I can meet CWD requirements. It's all in the planning.



I beg to differ, it's all in the contract....planners seem to forget when it comes time to put the contract together, or they try to put things in it that are not allowed. :msp_rolleyes:

Longbutting = badness contractually. 

Now, since it is a bad thing to do whilst logging, contractors are hired after the sale is closed, to dump trees on the ground for that. The standard is a minimum of 10 feet in length, and I'm thinking 10 inches on the small end, when it was put in the contract to leave a couple per acre.


----------



## Samlock (Jul 3, 2012)

zkurtb said:


> A bit more background on the motivation behind the idea. It may not apply to all markets, or all operations, but useful to the smaller independent not tied to a mill. Here in north Idaho we have nine or so species of merchantable conifer. Each mill has different prices, and within each mill’s price sheet there are differences by species and log length. Couple that to the length/volume parameters of the scaling system and it can get involved quickly. The example analysis I posted earlier is just a glimmer.



You're bucking in the brush and simultaneously deciding which mill you're about to sell the logs?

Optimizing is always a big issue here. Usually there's 2-6 potential buyers for the logs. They all have different log lengths and pricelists too. The thing is you need to make the sale before cutting, so you have to decide which bucking scheme would fit best the stand(s) in speak. I haven't found any better way to pick the most favorable sales than eyeballing the stand. And being open for the possible corrupt.... er... other factors.


----------



## madhatte (Jul 3, 2012)

slowp said:


> Longbutting = badness contractually.



Oh, I got that, for sure. I'm more interested in 4' of 36" than 20' of 4".


----------



## ShaneLogs (Jul 3, 2012)

RandyMac said:


> I have some bucking hardware.



I love me a Muc!


----------



## Gologit (Jul 3, 2012)

ShaneLogs said:


> I love me a Muc!



Sssssshhhhhh! The grownups are talking.


----------



## hammerlogging (Jul 3, 2012)

http://cnre.vt.edu/ifo/valuerecoveryhylton.pdf

I have seen this applied at a logger training program (SFI renewal....). About 10 loggers lost to the system, about 3 beat it, in terms of value recovery. It is a good training tool, unrealistic for daily use, but good for educational purposes.


----------



## StihlKiwi (Jul 4, 2012)

hammerlogging said:


> http://cnre.vt.edu/ifo/valuerecoveryhylton.pdf
> 
> I have seen this applied at a logger training program (SFI renewal....). About 10 loggers lost to the system, about 3 beat it, in terms of value recovery. It is a good training tool, unrealistic for daily use, but good for educational purposes.



Thats an interesting read, a 30-50% decrease in value recovery from suboptimal bucking is huge.

It seems like postioning logs accurately to within and inch or two on one of those bucking saws with a grapple would be quite difficult. Were the loggers you mentioned at the training program doing it this way, or with a tape and a saw?


----------



## StihlKiwi (Jul 4, 2012)

slowp said:


> You also need to factor in the sale administrator when working on Forest Service ground. If you are longbutting sound logs to get a better log for better pay, you'll hear about it.



By this do you mean trimming the butt to get a straighter/less tapered log?


----------



## hammerlogging (Jul 4, 2012)

Thats a good point- at the class we were on foot and using tapes, not sitting 10' up and using a sawbuck as is the usual landing set-up. the better loggers will get off their machine to evaluate higher value stems, mark, then get back on the loader. The value recovery loss from having well trained and intelligent merchandising has got to be huge As Gologit said, maybe more so here in the eastern hardwoods with (perhaps) more variables to consider in value recovery. And then their is the scale vs. grade issue- if the logger is getting paid by volume but the mill who hired them wants maximum value recovery, these can compete when making merchandising choices.


----------



## Gologit (Jul 4, 2012)

hammerlogging said:


> Thats a good point- at the class we were on foot and using tapes, not sitting 10' up and using a sawbuck as is the usual landing set-up. the better loggers will get off their machine to evaluate higher value stems, mark, then get back on the loader. The value recovery loss from having well trained and intelligent merchandising has got to be huge As Gologit said, maybe more so here in the eastern hardwoods with (perhaps) more variables to consider in value recovery. And then their is the scale vs. grade issue- if the logger is getting paid by volume but the mill who hired them wants maximum value recovery, these can compete when making merchandising choices.



Right. You guys back there have a lot more complicated scale/grade/sort issue than I do. I'll quit grumbling when the mill changes the specs twice a week.


Naaahhhhh....I'll still grumble. Just not as much.


----------



## slowp (Jul 4, 2012)

StihlKiwi said:


> By this do you mean trimming the butt to get a straighter/less tapered log?



Yes--whacking it off. Often it is acceptable to do, but sometimes fallers get carried away. They'll longbutt to cut defect out, but again, sometimes they do more than they should. There is a little bit of a problem with processors overdoing it now.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2012)

Had a Forester tell me I was getting better value out of lesser quality Oak than his other crew. 
I was cutting 18" firewood off the butts to improve the grade, they were not trimming and were cutting the longest logs possible- not much veneer to be found that way.
Here in the eastern US, you make your money (with hardwood) on the landing by knowing what the frack you are doing. You have to know what grade it is going to be after you make the cut..
I make my decision while the tree stands. You get the best look at it that way. I look for the defects and remember them on the landing. The only time I don't cut hardwood for grade is when I will waste more than 2' "good wood" of a tree. A 12' "Select" sawlog is worth the same money as a 10' #2 veneer. So I do not waste the wood....that 2' makes me and the landowner more money as a log than as firewood or pulp. 
Pine is sold to the mills as a straight through price, so I cut pine for maximum scale. I watch the log taper very closely. Diameter is the first priority, then grade- keeping in mind that a 12' sawlog pays more than a 16' pallet log.


----------



## OlympicYJ (Jul 4, 2012)

Slowp is right longbutting is a problem with the processors. That was one of the things I would look for when doing log quality. Longbutting in the past with larger diameter wood was a viable option... still can be with big timber, but not with small. To explain a little more, longbutting the ends for defect such as stump pull, buttrot, or butt swell is very common especially when logging big wood. With your smaller plantation wood the defect isn't there so the guys that logged in bigwood see that butt swell and want to whack it off. Well in small wood the amount of swell doesn't require longbutting it or at least to the degree the processor ops have been. Such as taking 2ft when 3in was enough. Little differences like that. The biggest log quality issue is that the processor ops don't check the measurements enough. I.e. getting off the machine and taping the logs to make sure they are cutting true. Should be done at least once a day twice is better. The outfit that I've seen that had the best measurement quality the ops were checking every 2 to 3 hours, including the owner when he was running processor. 

Too add to this a forester friend of my uncles was having his property logged. He told the logger to make 36's I believe, and the logger made 40's instead. So he went back with a chainsaw and cut them all to the length he originally specd and made way more money with those shorter logs because of the better scale. Food for thought lol


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2012)

I am currently researching, as best I can, fixed head harvester/processor heads.
You guys out west have used them for years, though more likely they were dangle heads.
What make has the best power / measuring system / reliability?

I am leaning towards the fixed heads because they offer tree control, a big consideration for my intended uses. The 4 I keep coming back to (All I can find, really!) are the Quadco 5660, Logmax 6000, Fabtek 4 roller, and Rolly-II. Which of these do you guys think is the best option for a 50/50mix of soft and hardwoods?


----------



## hammerlogging (Jul 4, 2012)

Logmax, in my rather limited exposure, always seems to be the preferred go to, especially given the abuse from hardwoods, especially the limbing part.


----------



## lmbrman (Jul 5, 2012)

Oldtimer said:


> I am currently researching, as best I can, fixed head harvester/processor heads.
> You guys out west have used them for years, though more likely they were dangle heads.
> What make has the best power / measuring system / reliability?
> 
> I am leaning towards the fixed heads because they offer tree control, a big consideration for my intended uses. The 4 I keep coming back to (All I can find, really!) are the Quadco 5660, Logmax 6000, Fabtek 4 roller, and Rolly-II. Which of these do you guys think is the best option for a 50/50mix of soft and hardwoods?



we run the fixed head Hahn - 

easy to work on, build parts if needed in the woods, reliable software, and reasonably priced new or used

(and easy to longbutt with if that helps, but don't tell any foresters)


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 5, 2012)

I really like the idea of the disk saw on the Quadco 5660 and the Rolly-II...Why mess with a bar and chain if you can have a disc. The Quadco has the 4 sided tooth design...
The Quadco swings out in an arc, the Rolly comes out straight on rails like a Roto-saw feller head.
Youtube has vids of them.
I really wonder how well these harvester heads will work in the late spring and early summer when the bark is basically falling off the bole...right now I have hell keeping a hitch in the grapple it's so damn slippery. Like my Uncle Al says, "It's slippery as a buttered C***K!"

I'm home and here on the site because I just blew out a skidder tire...And I mean it popped like a quarter stick of dynomite. "KeeerPOP-Whiiiiiiiisssssssshhhhhhh"..
In the process of gathering what I need to effect repair. $206 for the tube...


----------



## OlympicYJ (Jul 8, 2012)

Oldtimer said:


> I am currently researching, as best I can, fixed head harvester/processor heads.
> You guys out west have used them for years, though more likely they were dangle heads.
> What make has the best power / measuring system / reliability?
> 
> I am leaning towards the fixed heads because they offer tree control, a big consideration for my intended uses. The 4 I keep coming back to (All I can find, really!) are the Quadco 5660, Logmax 6000, Fabtek 4 roller, and Rolly-II. Which of these do you guys think is the best option for a 50/50mix of soft and hardwoods?



The two popular dangle heads are Waratah and Keto out here. Guys like the measuring system of the Keto but it's a tad slower than the Waratah and its a little gentler on the wood. The Ketos use tracks instead of wheels not sure but think they are a little more expensive to replace. And just saw they are part of Quadco. Fixed you might look at a Risley Cobra just one I know of don't know anything about em. I don't know if you thought about it but if you have hardwoods that are susceptible to bruising a processor head isn't the way to go. Both wheel and track heads will bruise the wood. Out here our alder is easily bruised by the wheels on Waratahs guys have used rubber wheels with some success but a stroker works way better. The bar and chain setup is reliable. The wheel saws on processors are kind of older tech if I remember correctly and it limits the size of wood you can process. Now on your bunchers like a Quadco Hotsaw fixed head is very popular. The Quadco you are looking at is 6500 pounds a Keto 150 is 1780 - 2300 pounds depending on how many knives you want. The Keto has a 25" capacity. Food for thought. The dangle heads have control when falling but it's an uncontrolled/controlled fall as opposed to a buncher head which controls the tree from the time it leaves the stump till it hits the ground. Just some observations I've made and what loggers have told me their preferences are. Food for thought.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 8, 2012)

Bruising is not an issue. I know the heads I am thinking about are very heavy. I'd need to have a 430 sized Timbco/Valmet or 735 Timberpro tracked machine. But that's the norm here. Need a leveler, and some ass under you to hold the wood..

I just love the idea of flotation; increased working season, less damage to the forest floor, all weather working ability, and the versatility a fixed head processor can offer.
An 8 wheeled forwarder with the eco-tracks should skip right over stuff that stops a skidder..
and I would still have the 648 Deere for the times I need it. 

Now to convince my bank to part with $200K in 3 years time...if the economy allows.


----------



## hammerlogging (Jul 8, 2012)

I am ashamed to admit that I meant Waratah when i said logmax. Sorry.

Do you mean to put the head on the timbco 8 wheel forwarder? I talked to a guy in NY doing that once. 

A timbco is NOT a machine you want to buy old, if you were wondering.


I would really think dangle head because it is SO much easier on the machine its attached to. and fast and maneuverable (think limbing hardwood) , and you can shoot pulpwood stick out the end 50-100 feet if you want to. SOunds like you are making great plans for the future.


----------



## StihlKiwi (Jul 9, 2012)

I've heard from guys on a couple of crews that run Woodsman heads that they've got the edge on the equivalent Waratah head, especially when it comes to delimbing, might be an advantage if you are dealing with hardwoods.
Hope that helps

Thomas


----------



## Samlock (Jul 9, 2012)

I too have heard a couple of experiments with harvester head/forwarder combos. Unfortunately they're not encouraging stories. The forwarder cranes and hydraulics are not designed for the harvester heads and they have eventually fallen to pieces.

That's of course second hand hearsay, I haven't done it myself. Still I'd strongly suggest you Oldtimer to keep asking around if there's someone who has done it.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 9, 2012)

The local Quadco dealer said they can diect me to 3 or 4 crews in southern NH who run the 5660.
I'd never try a fixed head on a machine designed for a dangle.
I know the dangle is lighter, maybe cheaper, and are fast...but I will need the ability to lift and carry the tree- both to reduce residual stand damage and to build whole tree piles for the skidder if a landowner wants the brush and tops removed.

Here's a couple videos of fixed heads. Quadco 5660, a Rolly-II, and a Fabtek.
I wish the Fabtek 4 roller had the quadco saw...

[video=youtube;wJUta7HPNKE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJUta7HPNKE[/video]


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 9, 2012)

[video=youtube;n1rqi3CKBVE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1rqi3CKBVE[/video]


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 9, 2012)

[video=youtube;yFhYtUrVK4c]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFhYtUrVK4c[/video]


----------

