# Tutorial: make your own raker depth gauge supported by software tool



## hannes69 (Apr 20, 2018)

A big hallo to all chainsaw sharpeners who like to build their own raker depth gauge!

In this thread I will show how easy you can make your own raker depth gauge, which has several advantages:


+ low cost

+ ‚personalized‘ gauge corresponding to your needs / preferences

+ no need for measuring equipment when raker filing

+ progressive depth approach

+ better linearity than typical buyable gauges

+ being proud of having another self-made tool 


First of all I have to thank BobL in this forum, whose thread https://www.arboristsite.com/commun...ly-progressive-depth-raker-generators.114624/ has inspired me a lot! He explains in his thread why we aim for a ‚constant cutting angle‘ and how we could realize that.

To my person: My name is Hannes, I live in Germany, more concrete in Bavaria, 200 miles away from Waiblingen, headquarter of Stihl  English is not my native language, I hope you´ll understand my wordings…

It´s a very short time I´m into the matter of chainsaws; last year my father died quite unexpected, so now the small ‚family forest‘ is my job and I hold my father´s good old Stihl 034 Super in honor. I renewed everything possible of the chainsaw, cleaned everything thoroughly and went then to the maintaining of the chain.

My profession is electric engineering, I like measuring, numbers, programming, repairing and tinkering with many things.

So I came across this wonderful forum here and found out many useful things about raker filing.

And in the same ‚perfect‘ manner like I restored my father´s chainsaw, I learned to sharpen my chain and now I wanted to do the same perfect approach according to the raker filing process.

It´s a shame that many chainsaw users still are used to throw away half-worn chains because they don´t cut as good as the new ones. A waste of money, bad for our environment (much of energy is needed when recycling metals), more unnecessary profit for chain producers, less fun and more effort when using a not so perfect chain.

So I invested some time to develop my perfect raker depth gauge. Of course I didn´t reinvent the wheel, but I tried to do my best to collect some information and combined it and give it a new structure.

The results are some self-made raker gauges, which are now in my personal use and now this thread including photos, explanations and a piece of software.

I´ll give this to you in the hope that it may be useful to some of you 

For me the raker filing process shall be practical and parallel as perfect as possible. The method by using calipers, digital angle finders and so on leads to perfect results, but this way is not that practical to me. On the other side the buyable raker gauges are very practical but not that perfect: Like BobL showed, they aren´t perfect progressive, you have to live with the given ‚soft‘ and ‚hard‘ settings and maybe there are problems with different chain types (e.g. bumpers).

My first attempt of creating a raker gauge was of course to imitate the given ones, so I built one in the Stihl or Husqvarna style.

To get away from the trial and error process, I then took pencil and paper, made some drawings and did the math behind it. Then some Excel sheets and after that for usability reasons and out fun I packed the formulas in a self-made Windows application: the Raker Gauge Calculator.

After this lengthy theoretical section I tried some versions of the raker gauge and started to think about better approaches. The result is my gauge type 2 (type 1 is the Stihl / Husqvarna design).

Here´s a photo showing some of them: the two left ones are type 1 (the second one with joined raker cutouts), the three right ones are type 2 (the fourth one made from stainless steel)




Both designs can be calculated by my software. That means: When knowing different parameters of a given chain (like raker – cutter distance, cutter height and so on), my tool calculates the resulting raker depths and cutting angles depending on cutter wear when altering the gauges´ design criteria.

So ideally you choose one of the chain presets so you don´t need to take measurements from your chain, choose the gauge type, and play with the gauge´s design numbers until you get the cutting angles you would like to have.

The software has several sections (tabs), one is the calculator itself, one tab shows the chain parameters graphically, one tab shows the gauges graphically and one tab contains some hints concerning the software and the gauges.
The following screenshots show the different tabs:









Download the zip file, unzip, run exe. Virus free guaranteed!


How are the gauges made?

I bought some steel plates from a normal hardware store, in Germany there are common 1.2 mm ‚normal‘ steel and 1.0 mm high grade steel (stainless). Here they sell them in 1 inch stripes, that´s an ideal width for a gauge. Next step is to cut off a piece 4 inch long, take a Dremel, angle grinder, hacksaw.

If you leave the gauge straight as it is now, maybe you´ll touch the chain with your fingers with a worn chain when using the gauge (see photo), so it is better to bend the gauge (like the Stihl ones).



I did the first curve with my fingers and the gauge pressed into a vise, the second curve with the help of a hammer and a chisel because of the narrow distance between the two curves.

The gauge type 1 design can be created by using different Dremel bits, if using ‚normal‘ steel it even is possible to misuse a steel driller in a drilling machine as a milling cutter if you don´t own a Dremel.

My personal favorite is my creation, the gauge type 2 

When looking at the numbers you´ll see that it is more linear during the cutters´ wearing life (see screenshot and compare with screenshot above)), due to its design it can be used with bumper style / safety chains (see photo) and most obvious it is VERY easy to build.







This one rectangular cutout can be made with anything, a hacksaw, a Dremel, an angle grinder or even a file, no special tools required.

Why are the numbers for this design better? Because of the LOWER pivot point.

The next photos show my raker gauges in action 

You see type 1 (the one you should already know from different manufacturers) and type 2, not sitting like type 1 onto a tie strap but onto a rivet.






These gauges are practical in use and from a practical point of view precise enough (let´s not say perfect  )

Why do the gauge manufacturers not use design 2?

Design 2 has one weakness: it has only 1 design criteria, the thickness of the material.

They prefer to use one thickness and use another design criteria that can be used for type 1, the criteria I call ‚pivot length‘, so the position of the pivot point.

So they can use one sort of metal sheet, and the design itself is no problem for mass production (laser cutting, …).

Maybe it would be difficult to sell such a simple design like my type 2, who would spend some bucks for a rectangular cutting ? 

So when using gauge type 2 we have to live with given metal sheet types or we have to discuss a way to alter the thickness of the material (this is not impossible, I´m thinking of at least two methods, one is hand grinding/polishing, the other one using acid).

By accident (or call it luck) the common 1.0mm and 1.2mm sheets work very well in combination with 3/8 chains.

And additionally you have one joker: you have more than one rivet on the chain to sit on with the gauge! For the 3/8 low profile chain I use the rivet directly after the raker, for the normal 3/8 chain one rivet farther away is the appropriate one.

One thing to mention concerning the bumper style chains: The gauge defines the level of the highest point of the raker. If you file away all the material parallel to the gauge, most of the bumper disappears 

The missing dimensions of the gauges´ cuttings that are not given by the calculator are dependent on your actual chain (pitch, gauge). Example gauge type 2, 3/8 chain, 0.063 driving link gauge: the cutting has to be 172 mil wide and 850 mil deep to make the gauge sit onto the rivet. The numbers don´t have to be that accurate, start with removing a little too less material and try the raker gauge, then progress with removing more material. The calculator doesn´t deliver these numbers, they are self explanatory when looking at your chain.


----------



## hannes69 (Apr 20, 2018)

So now, I give this knowledge to you, and maybe some of you can contribute to the project by the following things:

+ give feedback about different chain types. When I have a complete data set according to the software´s ‚chain‘ tab, I can integrate the data as preset into the software. Most interesting at this point would be a different chain pitch, I personally only own 3/8 and 3/8 low profile. For them I have measured the data with unprofessional equipment but much time and effort, I trust the numbers (the theoretical numbers show up in practice, at least for me…)
Maybe someone of you has professional equipment to do such measurements and could help me out in this regard.

+ give feedback about the gauges, the usage, the construction and so on, this could help other users

+ maybe the software tool needs some corrections, e.g. language,…, maybe you have suggestions, wishes ... 


This all seems a little bit complicated, but in real life it could be as simple like that:

You own a chain listed in the presets of the software e.g. Stihl Rapid Micro 3/8 0.063. You choose design 2 and you like a cutting angle in the region of 6.5°. You buy a 1 inch wide stripe of 1.2mm steel, cut off 4 inches, make a rectangular cutting 172 mil wide and 850 mil deep and optionally bend the steel stripe for better gauge handling. That´s all.

The rest of this post is explaining a lot of things around that 

It should be a kind of addition to BobL´s thread and a logical consequence of it.

I hope you can make use out of it; that was my intention.

And sorry for this long post, explaining things in a short manner is NOT my strength 

Be proud of your new tool 

And now it´s time to discuss that stuff hehe…

Hannes.


----------



## HarleyT (Apr 20, 2018)

Wouldn't you have to make a gauge for each brand of chain?


----------



## HarleyT (Apr 20, 2018)

Or one for each model chain in each brand?


----------



## HarleyT (Apr 20, 2018)

Why not use one like this?


----------



## hannes69 (Apr 20, 2018)

> Wouldn't you have to make a gauge for each brand of chain?
> Or one for each model chain in each brand?


Depends on the chain 
It mostly depends on the chain pitch and the chains´driving link gauge.
Of course a progressive raker depth gauge can´t be universal in this simple form.
My approach was to build your own gauge with very little effort, without special tools and in parallel being very linear.
Furthermore: Who uses personally many different brands, types, pitches and driving link gauges for chains? I personally own a Stihl 034 Super for the forest and only use one type of chain with it: 3/8 0.063 gauge Stihl. Beside that I own an electrical chainsaw for homeuse (if current is available) and for that purpose I use 3/8 0.050 gauge low profile chain. That´s it. Two different raker depth gauges.
I think many pros in the woods maybe use in parallel chisel and semi chisel chain, maybe one saw uses 3/8 and the other one .325 pitch, but that´s it.
And even if you own several different chains, I really don´t see a problem: 40 inches of the steel stripe cost me under 2 dollars, I can make 10 gauges out of one stripe, one gauge is finished in under 15 minutes...
The most interesting thing with my approach is, that you can adjust the raker to your personal preferences I think. Maybe you like a raker gauge depth of 30 mil with a brand new chain. Then you can create a raker gauge, that leads to a nearly constant cutting angle like the one of your new chain with 30 mil raker depth through the whole life of your chain, that´s the point.



> Why not use one like this?


You can use one like this. But this is a constant raker depth type and NOT a constant cutting angle type.
With this one you can maybe maintain a constant raker depth of 25 mil during the chain´s life, but that leads to a cutting angle that gets smaller and smaller the more your chain wears.
Here the numbers for the constant raker depth approach, compare the cutting angles with the screenshots of the starting post!




You see, that at the end of the useful life of a chain (Stihl Rapid Micro in this example) the constant raker depth gauge leads to a cutting angle of 2.6°, my gauge type 2 maintains at least 5.7° coming from a starting value of 6.3°! That means in simple words (and assuming some simplifications) that one chain has only half the cutting power of the other one at the end of life point.
Your decision what you prefer at this point 
Today all chain manufacturers offer these progressive types (Carlton, Husqvarna, Stihl, ...), there is a reason behind that. Even they confess now, that it is a better approach (though they´ll sell less chains because you will use it a lot longer because of the maintained cutting power).
So the historical development was this: First the method like "x file strokes every time I sharpen the chain", then a constant depth raker gauge, then buyable progressive raker depth gauges, now a better self-made version of the progressive gauge  That´s called evolution 

One hint: Read BobL´s post first (that´s the reason I linked it immediately at the start of my tutorial), then a second time my tutorial, then maybe some aspects get a little bit clearer.


----------



## JimM (Apr 20, 2018)

Well, I probably should just go kill myself now.


----------



## hannes69 (Apr 20, 2018)

^^Don´t really see a reason for that...


----------



## JimM (Apr 20, 2018)

hannes69 said:


> ^^Don´t really see a reason for that...


Should have lol’ed that. Over my head.


----------



## Del_ (Apr 20, 2018)

Thanks so much Hannes!

I'll be following your thread for sure.


----------



## TheTone (Apr 20, 2018)

Willkommen auf Arboristsite.com! I appreciate the time, effort, and expertise put into your posts, especially the theory behind you idea. I will spend some time studying them.


----------



## hannes69 (Apr 21, 2018)

Del_ said:


> I'll be following your thread for sure





TheTone said:


> I will spend some time studying them.



Yeah, please do that 
And hopefully give some feedback, my goal is that you build your own gauges and work with them


----------



## CR888 (Apr 21, 2018)

Welcome to the forum Hannes! I really like you clever thinking and simple design. Manufacturers have dealt with this issue poorly and don't offer a proper solution for progressive depth gauge adjustment. I will keep an eye on this thread and may have a go at making one.


----------



## JimM (Apr 21, 2018)

I’m bringing this back to the top. I apologize for my flippant response. I really do appreciate guys that put this much effort into things like this. That I’m not smart enough to take advantage is my fault.


----------



## hannes69 (Apr 22, 2018)

JimM said:


> That I’m not smart enough to take advantage is my fault.


Hmm, I tried to write the tutorial in a manner that everyone who has the time and the few tools to make this raker depth gauge should be able to do so.
Maybe I tried to explain my way of finding out all about this topic and it is a liitle bit difficult to explain it to somebody else? 
And I mixed two different aspects of this story together, one is to make a gauge, the other one is the theory behind it including the software part. But I thought that one aspect has very much to do with the other one...
I don´t know how good this tutorial will work out. It depends on the community here in the end. My software tool is version 1.0, there is room for improvement. If I get feedback about different chain types, I could integrate them into the software, so only a few people who deliver the data, would have to fiddle around with measurements and numbers.
Probably the process could be simplified, so when all the data is collected, a list could be published here, containing the different chain types combined with presets for a soft wood and a hard wood gauge. This would be the 'beginners mode' and the software with personal settings a kind of 'advanced mode'. Many things are possible in this field.
I personally took out very useful information for me from this forum and as a logical consequence (within my personal rules) I felt I have to give something back. And I decided by purpose to do that in this forum and go a harder way. It would be a little bit easier for me to post in a German forum, but I thought I´d like to go the 'big' way. The biggest forum regarding this topic, hopefully adressing many people, hopefully the possibility to help many people and the chance to develop this aspect of chainsaws further. 
Of course there is the danger that this topic is way too special, complex, uninteresting for many people, but everything has its risk. I tried my best here, it´s not up to me what the community makes out of it. It´s an offer.

For me it is very simple: A chainsaw is a machine. And machines are made to be perfect (or as perfect as possible) in contrast to people. 
I´d like to have the machine work as effiicient as possible, it does work for me, I get less tired, less burden on my bones and muscles. And the work has much more fun within it, when it´s running the way supposed to. I´m a beginner with chainsaws, but it took not much time to FEEL the difference between a proper tuned carburetor and a mistuned, the difference between a properly sharpened chain and a dull one and now the difference between properly filed rakers and rakers way too high.
I sharpened a Stihl chain these days with cutters weared 0.25 inch (so to speak 0.15 inch cutter left), the raker depth is now more than 50 mil (used my self-made gauge type 2 of course). I used this chain for cutting down a too high beech hedge (hard wood!), perfect behaviour of the chain. It felt absolutely the way it should, not too aggressive, no feeling of the nearing kickback or so, no rattling or bouncing. Absolute properly sized chips.
This topic has its benefit for me, and I´m only a hobbyist, it should even be way more interesting for professionals. You can work more efficiently, use a chain until the teeth break off, the raker filing process works better and faster with such a gauge.


----------



## HarleyT (Apr 22, 2018)

Can someone bring you a loop of chain, with a brand that you have not seen before, and you will be able to measure the depth gauges correctly? Take one of those Stihl examples I put up. Could you measure one of those loops? Or would you have to craft a gauge to fit them?


----------



## Del_ (Apr 22, 2018)

HarleyT said:


> Can someone bring you a loop of chain, with a brand that you have not seen before, and you will be able to measure the depth gauges correctly? Take one of those Stihl examples I put up. Could you measure one of those loops? Or would you have to craft a gauge to fit them?



I bet he would only need a small section of a given chain to get his measurements.

Hannes be patient with us. Some folks don't check in but every few days or weeks. Threads and topics like this 'pick up steam' over time. It may take a while to get rolling.

I am a 30+ year career arborist who does not do near as much cutting as some do. 

This is a great topic!

Thanks,

Dan


----------



## HarleyT (Apr 22, 2018)

Well, if you use a system that requires re-engineering a gauge, every time a different chain comes your way, that would make it hard to want to use.


----------



## HarleyT (Apr 22, 2018)

As far as being patient with us:
Any new ideas and/or tutorial, should be able to withstand simple questions and/or obvious observations.
But yes, I applaud the effort so far.


----------



## hannes69 (Apr 23, 2018)

HarleyT said:


> Can someone bring you a loop of chain, with a brand that you have not seen before, and you will be able to measure the depth gauges correctly? Take one of those Stihl examples I put up. Could you measure one of those loops? Or would you have to craft a gauge to fit them?


Of course I could measure these loops. It is not a trial and error process, so no fiddling around with the following built gauge. It´s plain geometry. Look at my software tool - tabs 'calculator' and 'chain'(or look at the second/third pic of the starting post). You see: you need 4 measurements of the chain when using gauge type 1 and additionally the two greyed out measurements and a variation of the cutter´s height for gauge type 2 so totally 7 measurements to complete one chain´s data set.
It was one of my wishes to the community here that I posted in my second post here: Give that data to me. I personally won´t buy all sort of chains, all brands, all types, all pitches, all driving link gauges. I already have measured two common types of them, 'normal profile' 3/8 and low profile 3/8. It is not very useful to send me chain samples to measure them (though you could do that). Because: Many of you can measure it on your own. The only really tool I used for that purpose was a digital caliper (any 'analogue' one serves as well). The rest consists of some helping tools, straight edges, bent metal stripes and so on. Everyone has other tricks to do such measurements as precise as possible. Maybe photos of the chains and measuring this 2D projections on the computer could partially work as well. What I hoped: Maybe someone of you uses something like a 3D scanner in his job and could use that for some chains... This would be the fastest and most accurate way of doing such measurements.
Beside that: Hopefully there are some simplifications we could make in the future (when knowing more about different chain types). E.g. I have now a data set for a Stihl Rapid Micro 3/8 0.063 gauge. We can leave alone the driving link gauge because this number has no influence on the 'real' matter here, the constant cutting angle, it only influences the width of the depth gauge´s cutout. So I have a data set for a Stihl Rapid Micro 3/8. I don´t own chisel chains, only semi chisel. So someone of you could hopefully now confirm my assumption, that Stihl Rapid Super 3/8 is really the same chain like Stihl Rapid Micro 3/8, and really only the cutter´s shape is different (the 7 and ? thing) and all the measurements are the same. That would mean: We already know the numbers for Stihl Rapid 3/8.
Furthermore: Someone of you owns the duro versions of this chains and the '3' versions like RD3 or RM3 with the bumper style. And hopefully confirm my assumption, that the measurement numbers are still the same (meaning these types of chain all share the same cutter and tie strap dimensions, they only differ in material or the type of driving link (normal or bumper/safety). That means: We already have the numbers for Stihl 3/8 (when I say 3/8 I mean 3/8 'normal' profile, otherwise I call it 3/8 LP for low profile).
The biggest question for me is, how similar the same chains of different manufacturers are. Of course there will be some variations in the measurement numbers, but are they really significant? If the variations lead to a difference in cutting angle of +/- 0.3° or maybe up to +/- 0.5° I consider this insignificant. So maybe we already know the numbers for '3/8' ? At least some posts in this forum here indicate that when people reporting the use of e.g. a Husqvarna raker depth gauge with a Stihl chain successfully or vice versa.
So maybe we are soon in the same ballpark like the big manufacterers, they offer 5 different depth gauges according to pitch (1/4, .325, 3/8, 3/8 LP, .404) and that´s it. That would lead to 10 different gauges out of my software tool, when maintaining the two types. And beside that my approach especially with the software tool makes it possible to aim for a personal preference of the cutting angle and maybe allow calculations for very exotic chain types.



Del_ said:


> I bet he would only need a small section of a given chain to get his measurements.


One cutter, one driving link, one tie strap in the right order that´s sufficient.



Del_ said:


> Hannes be patient with us. Some folks don't check in but every few days or weeks. Threads and topics like this 'pick up steam' over time. It may take a while to get rolling.


Good point  As well as not being capable of describing things in a compact manner, patience seems not to be a strength of mine  It´s exactly my hope, that this 'steam' (very nice wording!) is coming in the future.
My goal is in the end, that every chainsaw user uses his chains till the bitter end until the teeth are breaking with maximum cutting power through its life span with the help of the right gauge 



HarleyT said:


> Well, if you use a system that requires re-engineering a gauge, every time a different chain comes your way, that would make it hard to want to use.


It´s all a matter of preference of course. And balancing some aspects. Like with medicine: the desired effect and the not so wanted side effects. No one promises here the 'all in one wonder'.
See the top of the starting post, I already mentioned the advantages of my approach. When offering something new, it is common to tell about the advantages first. And of course it is a matter of fairness to look at the disadvantages as well, why not?
Disadvantages that come to my mind:
- no all in one raker depth gauge for all different chains on this planet
- no perfectly linear cutting angle
- some skills required for using certain tools (calipers, angle grinder, Dremel, file,...)
- some tools required (see above)

For me personally and hopefully many others, the advantages outweigh the few and small disadvantages.
And in my opinion the disadvantages are really small, because:
- there is no oneforall raker depth gauge because it simply is not possible. As well as there is not 1 type of chain for all possible applications.
- the cutting angle is not perfectly linear, but 'in the field' it should really be sufficient linear.
- a person capable of using a chainsaw should also be capable of using 'standard' tools like an angle grinder or calipers (at least in my world)
- some tools make life easier, but they aren´t a hard requirement. For my gauge type two you really only need something to cut away a piece of a metal stripe and then you could theoretically use a file to make the rectangular cutout. The bending is optional. You even don´t need to measure something, you can remove some material, try the seating, remove more material and so on until it fits perfectly. So maybe a hacksaw and a file needed.

And quoting you once again: "every time a different chain comes your way". What sort of usage profile is it, that you have to deal with many many different chains? Maybe a professional chain sharpener? 



HarleyT said:


> Any new ideas and/or tutorial, should be able to withstand simple questions and/or obvious observations.


Absolutely. I´m a very critical person myself, so criticism is welcome.
I´m not after getting only praise. And I consider this topic here now in a work in progress state. There´s always room for improvement. And I don´t have the opinion that I have the perfect approach for this topic. I have found the perfect approach for my personal needs and setup and I want to offer this solution to the community here. It´s up to you in the end, if it is also the perfect solution for you or not.
Some are happy by using the 'x file strokes every sharpening' method, I´m ok with that. I´m ok with people that use a digital angle finder and so can maintain a perfect cutting angle and don´t need to touch the cutters with a metal tool. I understand that. Though understanding these methods, I don´t use them because I have other preferences. I don´t want to convince or persuade anybody here, because the method itself is convincing


----------



## Philbert (Apr 23, 2018)

HarleyT said:


> Wouldn't you have to make a gauge for each brand of chain?


The Carlton File-O-Plates ('FOP') were like that. Some guys _loved_ them. Lots of guys runnust one type and size of chain, and they just need the correct one for their chain. 

Freaks that run dozens of different chain types might want something more like a protractor. 

Philbert


----------



## Philbert (Apr 23, 2018)

Links to a couple of other threads on depth gauge measuring tools:

https://www.arboristsite.com/community/threads/depth-gauge-tools-for-saw-chain.279374/

https://www.arboristsite.com/commun...l-indicator-feedback-on-marketability.295188/

Philbert


----------



## HarleyT (Apr 23, 2018)

Freaks huh???......

What are you tryin' to say???


----------



## HarleyT (Apr 23, 2018)

I am well known as a "freak" in the bedroom....

But not in the chainsaw shops......


----------



## Philbert (Apr 23, 2018)

HarleyT said:


> Freaks huh???......
> 
> What are you tryin' to say???


OP is a new member - don't want to derail his thread too far off the tracks!

Philbert


----------



## HarleyT (Apr 23, 2018)

I was about to say "P"?
You do a quick edit, sir!!


----------



## HarleyT (Apr 23, 2018)

Derail is kinda my thing......


----------



## hannes69 (Apr 24, 2018)

HarleyT said:


> I am well known as a "freak" in the bedroom


It´s up to you to decide, if exactly here is the right place to discuss your skills in the bedroom...



Philbert said:


> Links to a couple of other threads on depth gauge measuring tools


Ah, I already knew the first link. For me personally your quoted "Oregon Universal Depth Gauge" would be second prize after my type 2  Because it´s adjustable, you can maintain constant cutting angles of course. Its design should allow all chain types to work with it. Disadvantages: I´ve never seen such a tool being sold here in Germany. You have to take some measurements of gullet widths, take the mean value and set the gauge accordingly (e.g. 1/10 of gullet width). So this gauge works then with a mean value, if you don´t set it new for every cutter. 
I thought about copying this one, if my approach haven´t worked out well enough, but I´m very happy with my results, so...
I think you can build this one yourself, but it will be a liitle bit more complex than my idea.

All other showed buyable or self-made raker depth gauge solutions in this mentioned threads are not suitable for me personally.



Philbert said:


> don't want to derail his thread too far off the tracks!


If offtopic talk is funny or interesting for all of us, I have no problem with it, if it consists e.g. of insider jokes I´m not really a fan of it


----------



## 727sunset (Apr 24, 2018)

Great presentation and contribution "hannes69". 

Some time ago I adjusted a few chains over to progressive using FOP. Although they always cut well I later found them to be rather grabby for plunge cutting. For plunge cutting do we need to maintain DG at .025" or less?


----------



## Westboastfaller (Apr 24, 2018)

727sunset said:


> Great presentation and contribution "hannes69".
> 
> Some time ago I adjusted a few chains over to progressive using FOP. Although they always cut well I later found them to be rather grabby for plunge cutting. For plunge cutting do we need to maintain DG at .025" or less?


 Its rare that you can have the whole package. You file and sharpen for what works for everytthing but best for the majority. It can be a fine balancing act. If you are talking about one species of wood then more info is needed. Hardwoods depth is generally .025 and less hook. Perhaps one size bigger file or tilt the file up 10° into the corner. Interpretations of 'aggressive' can vary? Maybe the chain has a raker bent out a little or chain has a cracked strap? Its would be thumpy in the buck too. Lite bar? Tip size? could be endless. What's the depth and the wood?


----------



## 727sunset (Apr 24, 2018)

This is mainly hardwood...ash, maple, birch, cherry. Most trees are under 20"
No bent chains or cracked straps. 
Yes, tips are always RSN pro bars so larger radius.
Weve usually followed the constant DG of .025" 
For bucking .030" works aggressively.

Since plunge cutting is exercised we've dispensed with progressive DG...and everything is good again 

I'm still curious if others who follow progressive DG can plunge cut and whether it's on hard or softer species.
Comments and experiences appreciated.


----------



## Rosss (Apr 25, 2018)

Thanks for this thread. Following.


----------



## hannes69 (Apr 25, 2018)

727sunset said:


> Some time ago I adjusted a few chains over to progressive using FOP. Although they always cut well I later found them to be rather grabby for plunge cutting. For plunge cutting do we need to maintain DG at .025" or less?


Do we need? That´s maybe not the right manner of asking this question.
I´ll try to answer the question indirectly:
On one side there are influencing parameters from the physical world, on the other side it´s a matter of personal preference.
So you are cutting hard or soft wood, normal wood in the summer and frozen wood during winter, you have a large powerful saw and a small weak saw, you use chisel or semi chisel chain, maybe we are talking about milling, you use a sharpening angle of 25° or 35°, you are sharpening the chain very frequently or rather rarely, you use normal chain or bumper/safety chain, you use normal profile or low profile chain, you use an electrical saw with low chain speed or a two stroke saw with high chain speed, you have different bars and tips, the application varies from bucking to felling to limbing and so on; that´s all that comes spontaneously to my mind, there may be definitely more parameters.
And then there´s your personal taste. How experienced are you with chainsaw work? What about your physical power, age, constitution? What is more important for you, working speed or safety?
That´s all part of the whole story.
One argument for my raker depth gauge approach is, that you can adjust it to your needs and preferences.
E.g. my two setups:
1. Forest work: 80% pine 15% spruce 5% hard wood. Stihl 034 Super, semi chisel chain 30°, no frozen wood, chain frequnetly sharpened, normal chain profile, all forest work with this one saw at the moment (maybe a smaller additional saw planned for limbing), we are talking about making personal firewood in a rather small self owned forest, the amount of wood is sufficient for 2 households during a year.
Principally most of these parameters speak for using large cutting angles.
On the other side I´m a beginner with chainsaw work, though feeling very comfortable with this beast of a machine, I try for the moment to stay a little bit on the safe side, so I´ll not make my saw overly aggressive.
I´m using my self-made rager gauge with cutting angles in the region of 6.5° - 7.0° for the moment. But I have already made my second raker depth gauge for this setup with cutting angles 8.0° - 8.5° for the near future 
2. Home/garden work. Here I often use a small electrical chainsaw (less loud, no idling, there´s a power outlet in the garden). All sorts of wood. I use semi chisel low profile chain 30°. It´s an all purpose setup, my girlfriend uses this saw as well. In this use case safety is more in the foreground, speed not that important. So I use a chain with bumpers and a cutting angle in the 6.0° - 6.5° range.



727sunset said:


> Since plunge cutting is exercised we've dispensed with progressive DG...and everything is good again


I consider plunge cutting not as the 'normal' usage scenario. If you use that technique frequently then you maybe have chosen a bar or saw not that appropriate for this job 
If you have rarely some larger trees, you can use a bar that´s maybe on the working limit of your saw. If you have that case more often maybe it´s time to buy a bigger saw with a longer bar.
Plunge cutting, in my opinion, is the exceptional case. You are already in the forest with your saw and a maybe little bit too short bar, and this one tree has to be felled now, for whatever reason. Then it´s time for the plunge cutting. But that´s the opinion of a hobbyist´s point of view and I know that pros use this technique more frequently.
I personally don´t like this technique very much. But I´m not a good reference at this point, I´m a beginner and so if I had the chance, I´d like to do all cuts with the bottom side of the bar 

So I´d say at this point with the explanations above in mind: Use a raker depth that feels comfortable to you.
In the end it´s all about safety vs. speed. When using safety chain and very high rakers you are on the very safe side, but maybe the plunge cut is even not possible at that point ... On the other side you want to work very fast and make a very aggressive setup, but then maybe the saw starts to wobble around and the forces come free at the wrong place and you maybe get injured.
It all depends.
I personally avoid 'unsafer' techniques and when not possible I work slowly, concentrated and with high body tension and awareness level.
On the other side, when bucking straight clean soft wood trees on a plain and even field in the summer with a properly sharpened chain and a powerful saw, I see no reason for having rakers at all


----------



## Albert Beerstein (Apr 25, 2018)

Westboastfaller said:


> Its rare that you can have the whole package. You file and sharpen for what works for everything but best for the majority. It can be a fine balancing act.


This is probably the key idea to keep in mind when trying to sharpen chain to improve cutting

Love your work Hannes69!


----------



## lambs (Apr 25, 2018)

Hannes,
I'd like to hear about your experience above 7 degrees of drop on the depth gauges. My experience is it will be rough. So be careful there my friend.


----------



## Philbert (Apr 25, 2018)

These are '_finger goiniometers_' (really). Special protractors designed to measure range of motion for fingers, etc. Cheap, plastic ones start at $7 on eBay. Better ones are $35+ in stainless steel, from medical supply houses. Think they could easily be modified for depth gauge service?





Philbert


----------



## hannes69 (Apr 26, 2018)

lambs said:


> I'd like to hear about your experience above 7 degrees of drop on the depth gauges. My experience is it will be rough. So be careful there my friend.


A cutting angle of 7° with a standing alone number like this without considering the circumstances says nothing. 
I mentioned some of the influencing parameters in post #33.
It´s like always - it depends.
When using full chisel chain, a higher sharpening angle of 30°+ and cutting hard wood or doing techniques like plunge cutting, maybe a cutting angle wide above 7° is not recommended.
Here a quote from my post above:


> On the other side, when bucking straight clean soft wood trees on a plain and even field in the summer with a properly sharpened chain and a powerful saw, I see no reason for having rakers at all


That was meant a little bit ironic, but with some truth in it. I work in such conditions and I´m using semi chisel chain 30°. The pine wood I cut is REALLY soft.
My father hand filed his chains and didn´t use tools like raker depth gauges. I have one of these chains here and I measured and tested it. It is half worn, has a raker depth of 57 mil, that corresponds to a cutting angle of 8.5°. Of course this chain is not running exactly as smooth as a chain with a cutting angle of 6.5°, but in pine wood it works as it should, spraying chips all over the place 
I personally wouldn´t use this chain for felling and limbing (even for soft wood), but for bucking very soft wood it works very well.



Philbert said:


> These are '_finger goiniometers_' (really). Special protractors designed to measure range of motion for fingers, etc. Cheap, plastic ones start at $7 on eBay. Better ones are $35+ in stainless steel, from medical supply houses. Think they could easily be modified for depth gauge service?


Hmm, what I see is a scaling accuracy of 5°, that would mean some larger modifications to make it appropriate for a depth gauge.
Beside that: It´s the second time in this thread that you are giving hints towards alternative raker depth gauge solutions other than mine. If you think that my solution has weaknesses, flaws or could be improved feel free to communicate that in a direct manner by talking about my solution and not by this indirect manner with pointing to alternatives. Feels a little bit like inviting someone to Sunday´s coffee and cake, offering a self made cake, and the guest says "Maybe you don´t already know, but Walmart sells really good cakes...".

-----------------
To a certain degree I really don´t understand what´s going on here. It´s ok to make discussions around topics, talking about basics, experiences, alternatives and so on.
Why do you guys not talk about the topic here? The topic is called like that and also meant like that to make your own raker depth gauge, that this is personalized to your needs and that this process is supported by a software tool.
I didn´t think about doing all the discussion from the very beginning on, I already refered to BobL´s thread.
For me it is a given (and so no big need of discussing that) that
- a raker depth gauge is easening the raker filing process
- a progressive depth raker depth gauge (constant cutting angle) is far superior to a constant depth raker depth gauge (decreasing cutting angle)
- there is no all in one solution, we have different chains for different needs, so we need different raker depth gauges
- there is no fixed best cutting angle, it depends on many many things
- cutting angle is also a matter of personal taste beside the hard facts

I wanted to discuss my solution for the given problem. So discuss what is better of my solution and what is worse compared to other ways? What can be improved? How is the usability of the software tool? 
And what´s really disappointing to me: Noone really wants to simply try it? I´m really sure that many of you guys have a piece of metal sheet lying in the corner of the workshop. You simply could take this piece and take an angle grinder or whatever you want and make this simple tool within a very short time. And then you can report back that it is working like a charm or a really big piece of crap.
Don´t get me wrong - I like theoretical discussions a lot, but at a certain point I think there has to be the connection between theory and practical experience. In the sense of this thread it leads nowhere, when I am the only one who actually makes use of this raker depth gauge solution. 
It´s up to you what to make out of this thread. My plan was mainly, that as many people as possible should have a direct practical benefit for everyday´s chainsaw working. We can work together on this benefit, if you´d like to.


----------



## HarleyT (Apr 26, 2018)

I don't think anyone here quite shares your "zeal" in depth gauge maintenence, and they are just posting out of politeness.
However, I think the politeness just ended.


----------



## 46 Poulan (Apr 26, 2018)

File them down and lets go make some chips fly.---


----------



## hannes69 (Apr 26, 2018)

HarleyT said:


> I don't think anyone here quite shares your "zeal" in depth gauge maintenence, and they are just posting out of politeness.
> However, I think the politeness just ended.


I think you understand here something very very wrong. With my starting post I am offering something to you, the flow is not the other way round as you may want me to think about it. 
I found out something for me, invested a good amount of time, knowledge and brain into making photos, a software tool and writing the huge starting post in this thread. And decided to give it to the community here. 
My solution is already working for me and I know why and how it is like that, so maybe you can take advantage of it. 
Of course nobody has to share my zeal in this topic, but when I personally have no zeal in muffler mods, I simply don´t write posts in muffler mod threads e.g. 
Posting out of politeness? Please don´t do that, it´s in nobody´s favor. What is my benefit if someone is posting out of politeness? Your argument smells like I need pity or charity? I really don´t think so 
If you can make use of my thread, use it, maybe discuss it; if it is nothing for you, please simply ignore it instead of pretending to be polite.
By the way in the style you write that, you personally don´t really seem to be a polite person, so better not talk about politeness.
And here we are again, talking about things pretty far away from the topic and my intention.
BTW, I appreciate BobL´s work in this field as already mentioned, he seems to share my zeal and I see it like it is - he gave me something in this regard and I´m thankful for it. That maybe is polite as sideeffect from me, but mainly it´s simply like I said. Hopefully some people having enough zeal chime in in this thread during time 
---------
The truth is simple: you can gain something by this thread, I can´t loose anything here (apart from some people not being polite to me anymore, but that´s a problem I can probably live with  )


----------



## hannes69 (Apr 26, 2018)

46 Poulan said:


> File them down and lets go make some chips fly.---


Indeed


----------



## HarleyT (Apr 26, 2018)

Well, just trying to explain things to you a bit.

Guys here tend to like using their saws,

like those who follow Cooking sites like food, and they are not that interested that much in making their own measuring cups.


----------



## Del_ (Apr 26, 2018)

HarleyT said:


> Well, just trying to explain things to you a bit.
> 
> Guys here tend to like using their saws,
> 
> like those who follow Cooking sites like food, and they are not that interested that much in making their own measuring cups.



HarleyT, you are speaking for yourself and only yourself.

I believe there is quite a bit of interest in this subject. If not it would not of been a topic of interest for the 16 years I've been here.

Threads like this tend to become of great historical interest and run for many years.

This is the first time that I recall that software has been presented.


----------



## HarleyT (Apr 26, 2018)

OK, yes. I only speak for myself.

Let the history continue....


----------



## Westboastfaller (Apr 26, 2018)

Who is to say as most daily active members are names IDK?
Lots of guys are down with making and fixing and many are not.
I am on the 'are not' side. I will spend time to help someone to run or troubleshoot a saw on here or otherwise.but I won't fix my own on/off switch.
OP, I told a phycologists about 5 yes ago that I had a real hard time with when I would hold a door open for strangers and they couldn't even say thank you. He looked at me and said.." Why do you hold the door open for someone" As I didn't have the answer he said.." Because you wanted too...you didn't do it for a thank you".
That changed my life. 20 people can not say thank you and I walk away as I was....crying...now I just cry all the time....lol OK the crying part was a joke. True goods.

I try to share the ways of my trade on here all the time and get dismissed often. Truth is, every time I wanted too and most times they didn't ask, as we didn't ask you. Now go blow and wipe your nose and we can get started ok.? J/k 
I will ask some questions.


----------



## Del_ (Apr 26, 2018)

For our new friend writing and reading in a foreign language:

J/k means 'just kidding'.


----------



## hannes69 (Apr 26, 2018)

HarleyT said:


> Guys here tend to like using their saws,
> like those who follow Cooking sites like food, and they are not that interested that much in making their own measuring cups.


Not so sure about that comparison. Maybe a better one says: "There are people who love to follow cooking sites, but aren´t able to or interested in making a meal..."
There are things called essentials. You can do some porting, muffler mods and so on to have more power out of the saw. You can leave it out without greater problems.
On the other side it should be of interest for you, which sort of fuel you are using, you are breathing the exhaust gases all the time. You should be interested in tuning a carb. Due to many parameters it can change its behaviour and you are raunning too lean or too rich. It´s good to see when this is coming to you and you can react. Otherwise some costly parts of your saw can be trash in a very short time.
And then there´s the chain in your CHAINsaw. This device is doing all the work for you. Not you (though being tired after some chainsaw work). It´s not the engine, the engine is driving the chain. The chain is THE crucial part of your saw. And to maintain power, you have to maintain your chain, that means sharpening and part of that process means raker filing. Maybe you throw away a chain when it´s time to file it the first time, I don´t think so. Some of you give it away to a service, I think many of you do this job on your own. 
There are many threads dealing with correct sharpening of the chain (angles, techniques,...) and always the importance of the raker is mentioned. You can have a very sharp chain, but this isn´t of much help, if your rakers haven´t the correct depth. Too low and it gets dangerous for you and some parts of your saw will suffer, too high and you have no fun with cutting or can´t even cut.
In my opinion we are not talking here about making a C+ grade out of C, we are talking about getting at least a B instead of an E or F 
Now we can discuss who determines what an essential is, but it´s better to leave that out.



Westboastfaller said:


> Because you wanted too...you didn't do it for a thank you


You´re right. I wanted to open this thread and present my ideas and work to you. I´m not after the big 'thank you', noone has to say that my specialized aspect of chainsaws is the most important one in (chainsaw´s) life.
I can not put demands on the community here. But as thread opener I can emphasize some aspects or pointing to some wishes. And I wish constructive feedback, critics, development, movement. 



Westboastfaller said:


> I will ask some questions.


You´re welcome 



Del_ said:


> J/k means 'just kidding'.


Thanks for the note, helped me out of my hopeless 'blow and wipe my nose' situation


----------



## Del_ (Apr 26, 2018)

hannes69 said:


> Thanks for the note, helped me out of my hopeless 'blow and wipe my nose' situation



Hannes, a saying you may or may not of heard: "The turd in the punch bowl".

You are going to find a few that come here for that very reason.

It is great to see that you are familiar with that type of behavior.


----------



## Westboastfaller (Apr 26, 2018)

I had spent a fair bit of time reading and re-reading to try and understand as much as possible first. I'm not a tec guy, but do like math and cutting theory. I am very much aware that a progressive gauge will not keep a chain cutting correctly with a series of various length cutters. I wasn't sure of the reason behind that. I believed the light surge (skip chain) was from when you had a much longer tooth in front of a short one with the centripetal force sucking the chain in causing it to miss a run of teeth then grab agsin. It wasn't terrible but I could notice the start of the end. Maybe I'm half right? I would also get driver wear with the Oregon too, at about half chain and that was reason enough to swap out the chain for good . I think most of us were lead to believe that a progressive gauge would match the depth. I wonder if Oregon chain has a steeper cutter top plate slope than Stihl? It looks like it does and I found Stihl move forgiving as it stays cutting properly, longer. I know the cutter is of a slightly lower profile.
Re: Reg 3/8 chain that is. So now things fall into place (no pun) and I thank you for that.

Questions:
Its hard to see off this device.
How does it work? You say you pick the desired angle and it butts up at the end of the slot correct? I see it sits on the rivit. So this has one position and its more accurate due to the lower point to the rivet?

Start with this and I'll write more.


----------



## Westboastfaller (Apr 26, 2018)

I had a hard time figuring out what [mil] was to mean behind what looked to be 1000" was confusing me with millimeters, which couldn't possibly be.
Took me a while to figure out that to mean,mili. That meaning 1000 as in milliliters; being a thousandths of a litre or milligram & milimetre being that of a kilogram and metre
Yeah, I grew up with metric and that one took a while for me to connect.
Its funny 20 yrs ago in Alaska I noticed 'Americans' using K after the housing prices. I have assumed for 20 yrs that its derived from Kilo.
Always struck me as odd considering they are not with the metric system. Must have being the same dik realtor that moved on to working for a saw chain company and started calling everything in the shop "FULL ....."!


----------



## Philbert (Apr 26, 2018)

hannes69 said:


> Absolutely. I'm a very critical person myself, so criticism is welcome. I'm not after getting only praise. And I consider this topic here now in a work in progress state. There's always room for improvement.





hannes69 said:


> . . . Beside that: It's the second time in this thread that you are giving hints towards alternative raker depth gauge solutions other than mine. If you think that my solution has weaknesses, flaws or could be improved feel free to communicate that in a direct manner by talking about my solution and not by this indirect manner with pointing to alternatives.



Sorry for offending you. In some of you posts you seemed very open to comments, alternative opinions, and even joking. However, you seem very closed minded to options and ideas other than your software based solution.

Your '_solution_' seems overly complex for practical use. Even if you decide on an optimized angle, you still need to measure that in the field, and I pointed out existing tools, and alternatives to your home made versions, that could measure and support those angles. It was intended to support your software results, but you are taking it as a challenge to your system, despite your encouragement of criticism.



hannes69 said:


> To a certain degree I really don´t understand what´s going on here. It´s ok to make discussions around topics, talking about basics, experiences, alternatives and so on. . . . I wanted to discuss my solution for the given problem. So discuss what is better of my solution and what is worse compared to other ways? What can be improved? How is the usability of the software tool? And what´s really disappointing to me: Noone really wants to simply try it? . . .



What is going on here is that this is a public forum. It is not a research symposium. Not everyone fell in love with your approach, and you are disappointed. You have not convinced many people that the complex, software driven, '_make-your-own-tool approach'_ offers a significant, practical advantage over existing tools and methods.

I personally work with _dozens_ of different chains on _dozens_ of different saws. I will be dammed if I have to carry around _dozens_ of little, homemade gauges, and also provide them to the people I work with.

Scan through some of the other threads in this forum: you were treated with greater courtesy than many participants. 

Philbert


----------



## HarleyT (Apr 26, 2018)

Another "floater"!!!


----------



## Heffalump (Apr 26, 2018)

The 034 Super is a FINE saw indeed.

Welcome!!


----------



## Stihl 041S (Apr 26, 2018)

Philbert said:


> Sorry for offending you. In some of you posts you seemed very open to comments, alternative opinions, and even joking. However, you seem very closed minded to options and ideas other than your software based solution.
> 
> Your '_solution_' seems overly complex for practical use. Even if you decide on an optimized angle, you still need to measure that in the field, and I pointed out existing tools, and alternatives to your home made versions, that could measure and support those angles. It was intended to support your software results, but you are taking it as a challenge to your system, despite your encouragement of criticism.
> 
> ...


It is know as the Dunn Kruger Effect. Very common in research.
And one must understand the law of diminishing returns 
Just is.


----------



## HarleyT (Apr 26, 2018)

Ouch....


----------



## Stihl 041S (Apr 26, 2018)

Aw heck we all do it. 
Because in Theory ........theory and practice are the same......in practice......they usually aren’t.


----------



## HarleyT (Apr 26, 2018)

I would like to see a video of these gauges in use, and how the depth gauge/rubber band/File? work in reality. Just a video of someone adjusting the rakers, and how that works.
Just as a starting point.

And if I ask any questions about the use/practicality of this method, not to be dismissed immediately.

And have the poster not use the "language barrier" as a quick easy way out of responding to questions.


----------



## HarleyT (Apr 26, 2018)

But hey, we are a big pile of "TURDS".....


----------



## HarleyT (Apr 26, 2018)

I showed a couple of examples of chain, that would cause some problems for the gauge to work.

But they were dismissed immediately. I saw no response to my questions.


----------



## HarleyT (Apr 26, 2018)

Pretty much, every loop that one has, would require it's own gauge. Unless one purchased a case of identical loops at one time. Which is absurd.


----------



## HarleyT (Apr 26, 2018)

Lots of questions have popped up.

Have at it.......


----------



## JimM (Apr 26, 2018)

HarleyT said:


> And have the poster not use the "language barrier" as a quick easy way out of responding to questions.


Actually, he uses ‘our’ language better than most here. Lol


----------



## Westboastfaller (Apr 26, 2018)

Can someone google Husquavarna Depth gauge and post it please as I can't right now
Thnx
Its a longer plate
It says EM on the face with hardwood setting on one end and soft on the other.


----------



## HarleyT (Apr 26, 2018)

JimM said:


> Actually, he uses ‘our’ language better than most here. Lol


Well, Hoosiers.......


----------



## JimM (Apr 26, 2018)

HarleyT said:


> Well, Hoosiers.......


Yep. Thank you.


----------



## HarleyT (Apr 26, 2018)

No worries. 
We here in Ky., well we miss Bobby Knight.


----------



## HarleyT (Apr 26, 2018)

He should be our next Secretary of State....


----------



## hannes69 (Apr 26, 2018)

Del_ said:


> Hannes, a saying you may or may not of heard: "The turd in the punch bowl".


Didn´t knew that one  I hope I understand the meaning of it, had to google it...



Westboastfaller said:


> I am very much aware that a progressive gauge will not keep a chain cutting correctly with a series of various length cutters.


I don´t understand what you are meaning here. I think that a chain with a series of various length cutters never will cut correctly. That has nothing to do with raker depth, it simply should be avoided during the sharpening. I think the human eye is very good in estimating cutter length when comparing some of them, it shouldn´t be a problem to hold them on a similar length during sharpening. It shouldn´t be aproblem as well when there are smaller variations like +/- 10 mil in cutter length.
A progressive raker depth gauge has an advantage in this regard compared to a 'normal' constant depth gauge: The 'normal' tool sits on two or more cutters, so it doesn´t adapt to one specific cutter, it´s a mean value then on different cutters / rakers. The progressive tool refers to one cutter and so adapts the according raker (depth). 



Westboastfaller said:


> How does it work? You say you pick the desired angle and it butts up at the end of the slot correct? I see it sits on the rivit. So this has one position and its more accurate due to the lower point to the rivet?


I assume you know your desired cutting angle. You come to this value the easiest with a new chain.
Let´s make an example. You have a brand new Stihl Rapid 3/8 chain (my basic example). This chain has brand new a raker depth of 25 mil. Let´s assume for your setup you are perfectly happy with the behaviour of this chain and you don´t want to change the depth now. That means when using my calculator you see for a cutter wearing of 0 mil ( = brand new) you have a cutting angle of 6.3°.
You say you like math: This value is very easy to calculate. When knowing the cutter-raker distance (value 'A' in my software) the cutting angle is calculated by arcustangens(raker depth / cutter-raker distance).
Other example: Maybe you are cutting softwood and you found out, that when lowering the rakers of your brand new Stihl Rapid chain to 33 mil (that is what Stihl recommends in Germany at least for soft wood), it is perfect for your needs. Then you can enter this value of 33 mil in the according field of the calculator (raker depth 'C') and you´ll get a cutting angle of 8.3° or you calculate yourself with the formula above.
Now you have your target value of the cutting angle. When using other methods than mine (digital angle finder, manual measurements,...) you aim for this angle. The progressive raker depth gauges from Stihl, Husqvarna, Carlton,... aim for a certain value as well, but you have no influence on this value. It is a given. 
Now comes the calculator to play and the self-made gauge: You enter the thickness value of your steel stripe (field 'F') and do variations of the pivot length (field 'G') if using guage type 1, until the cutting angles depending on cutter wearing get nearly a constant value for your aimed cutting angle. For phhysical / mathematical reasons you can´t get a perfect result. The values always get less in direction to more cutter wearing. 
When you decide to take type 2 (the easier one to produce) you only have one design parameter for the gauge, it´s the thickness. So you play around with the thickness value until you have an even distribution of cutting angles (so nearly the same value for new chain to total worn chain) aiming for your personal wanted value. Now you have luck and you land at a common steel plate thickness, if not you´ll have to make yout tool out of a too thick material and find a way to make it thinner. I mentioned this already in the strting post, that´s somethinhg to discuss here, maybe hand plishing or acid ist he way here for a homogenous result.
Don´t confuse the two versions of the tool. Type 1 is the commercially sold type, the slot sits onto a tie strap, Type 2 is the simpler one with the rectangular cutout, you can´t buy this one, this one is my idea and it is sitting onto a rivet. The advantage of type 2 in contrary to type 1 is, that the decrease of the cutting angle during the chain´s life is less. Both types have to live with a small decrease of the cutting angle during chain life, but it is ok for type 1 and even better with type 2.
BobL has measured this angle for a brand new Stihl chain as 5.7° when I remember correctly. The actual value depends on what you refer the cutter-raker distance to. I take tip of the raker to tip of the cutter horizontally aligned, I think BobL takes raker to 'gullet' so refers to a point deeper into the cutter compared to my reference. So he gets a little smaller values than my calculation, but it is meaning the same in reality. So BobL´s 5.7° are my 6.3°.



Westboastfaller said:


> I had a hard time figuring out what [mil] was to mean behind


I wanted to give a measurement unit with common numbering (so no decimal points and many zeros) and decided for this one. I think some call it 'thou' meaning the same.



Westboastfaller said:


> Yeah, I grew up with metric and that one took a while for me to connect.


I live in a country using metric, I thought most of the readers of this forum live in inch countries, so I decided for this system... Had to adapt all the calculations myself...



Philbert said:


> Sorry for offending you. In some of you posts you seemed very open to comments, alternative opinions, and even joking. However, you seem very closed minded to options and ideas other than your software based solution.


I won´t say I really feel offended. Ofcourse there are several different solutions. The type 1 gauge is not an invention of mine, it really exists for a long time now. And of course you can use other methods, why not? I never said that my method is the only valid one. I already mentioned the thing with the medicine and the effects and side-effects. Every method (including mine) has several advantages and disadvantages.
My point was the following: I´m offering a certain approach here. And so I think it´s normal to take relation to the thread´s topic within this thread. I had the feeling that you don´t really relate to my solution (say it´s good, it´s bad, there are better ones, feel inspired by this and that...) but simply pointed to other approaches. You can do that, but it would make more sense to me, when you not only link to them but deliver your point in linking to them (maybe a comparison or whatever).



Philbert said:


> Your '_solution_' seems overly complex for practical use. Even if you decide on an optimized angle, you still need to measure that in the field, and I pointed out existing tools, and alternatives to your home made versions, that could measure and support those angles. It was intended to support your software results, but you are taking it as a challenge to your system, despite your encouragement of criticism.


Maybe you didn´t understand my solution? My solution is in certain points the same like existing progressive raker depth solutions (type 1). What do you have to measure in the field to make use of them? Nothing. You buy one and use it. Depending on the type you decide if using the "soft" or "hard" setting. Nothing to measure.
The same is valid for te two types that can be calculated by my software. So my software makes it possible to make a gauge like the buyable ones (type 1) with the difference that you can actually decide or SET your desired cutting angle value. You do the calculations ONCE and then never again, You need the calculations to build your personal gauge, nothing more. I didn´t reeinvent the whel new here, type 1 is a copy of the given ones (but with a 'personal' angle), type 2 is a variant of type 1 that is easier to produce and has less angle decrease towards the end of life of of your chain. Nothing more and nothing less.
I see it as a logical consequence of BobL´s work. He refered to a decrease of angle of the given progressive gauges (FOP), I dleiver now the amount of this decrease. And I came to the conclusion that the decrease is not that large as I feared and on top of that I found a better version (type 2) to make the situation even a little bit better.
I take nothing as a "challenge to my system". I am honest and said already in the starting post, that this is not my invention. I did a sort of 'reverse engineering' of the given progressive tools and now you have the numbers. So it is not 'my system' and there is no challenge. You make it sound as I would like to 'sell' something here. Nothing to sell. I don´t earn any money with giving this software for free to you. I don´t plan to sell commercially self-made raker depth gauges. 



Philbert said:


> Not everyone fell in love with your approach, and you are disappointed.


It´s common to do arguments with exactly the opposite. I am not disappointed because of not everybody loving my approach, I am disappointed because not one single individuum produced this type of gauge himself and simply tried the solution.


----------



## hannes69 (Apr 26, 2018)

Philbert said:


> You have not convinced many people that the complex, software driven, '_make-your-own-tool approach'_ offers a significant, practical advantage over existing tools and methods.


Maybe I have not convinced anybody, true. I offered and showed something. And I tried to show some new aspects of this topic, give some advantages and disadvantages. Is it really my job to convince somebody here? Am I selling cars or insurances? You have now a tutorial, some photos and ap iece of software. You can do whatever you want with it. Maybe nothing. Say bad words about it. Like it. Use it and give no feedback. Use it and give feedback. Do something to make it better. It´s all your choice. Of course some scenarios are prefered by me, I am a human and not a machine so having some feelings. 
It is not a problem for me, that my solution has no value for you. You have your own setup and choose the things that suit the best your setup.
I have found my solution for my setup and I published it in the thinking that maybe some of the millions of chainsaw users can make use of it.
If it´s not you it´s maybe another guy. No solution is suitable for everybody. 
And if in the end I am the only person the solution helps, then it is like that. Even then it wouldn´t mean a waste of time to me, I made my programming skills better, I trained my English, I used my digital camera and I tried to write down a tutorial.
As I already said - nothing to loose here on my side.



Philbert said:


> you were treated with greater courtesy than many participants.


What exactly do you want to say here? I shall be grateful because of the way I´m treated here? I shall be grateful because it would have been possible that I was treated way worse?
Ok, many thanks for being treated well by you! 



Stihl 041S said:


> It is know as the Dunn Kruger Effect. Very common in research.


Ah, a hobby psychologist chimes in 
Maybe when simply chiming in, nothing useful to add to the actual topic here and judging other people without knowing them really, may be a sign of being victim of the Dunn Kruger Effect himself. 
I understand that attitude, I´m a hobby psychologist myself.


----------



## HarleyT (Apr 26, 2018)

hannes69 said:


> I am disappointed because not one single individuum produced this type of gauge himself and simply tried the solution.



Lol...

Exactly!!!!


----------



## HarleyT (Apr 26, 2018)

That type of "arrogance" is what we tend to resist...

Just as a nation of misfits.....


----------



## HarleyT (Apr 26, 2018)

Kind of why we elected a "rude" leader.....


----------



## JimM (Apr 26, 2018)

HarleyT said:


> Lol...
> 
> Exactly!!!!


Not true. I picture Del out in his shop working diligently on one as we speak.


----------



## HarleyT (Apr 26, 2018)

JimM said:


> Not true. I picture Del out in his shop working diligently on one as we speak.


Well, I am sure that he is.

Speaking as a turd.....


----------



## hannes69 (Apr 26, 2018)

HarleyT said:


> I would like to see a video of these gauges in use, and how the depth gauge/rubber band/File? work in reality. Just a video of someone adjusting the rakers, and how that works.


On this page you´ll find a video with the Stihl tool in action (FL1- FL5): https://www.stihl.com/sharpening-saw-chain.aspx My type 1 is the same.
The rubber band is a misunderstanding. You don´t need that and won´t use it during filing. My girlfriend was not at home when taking the photos, and I haven´t the right amount of arms to hold this thing on its place and making sharp photos in parallel. So I used the band as a simple holder, nothing else.



HarleyT said:


> And have the poster not use the "language barrier" as a quick easy way out of responding to questions.


Never tried to use this technique. No need to fear something like that. 



HarleyT said:


> I showed a couple of examples of chain, that would cause some problems for the gauge to work.
> But they were dismissed immediately. I saw no response to my questions.


I answered, at least I remember so. If not: There are no problems. At least not for type 2. it sits on a rivet and all of the bumper/safety parts of the chain find their place in the slot of the gauge.



JimM said:


> Actually, he uses ‘our’ language better than most here.


I take this as a compliment.



HarleyT said:


> Just as a nation of misfits.....
> Kind of why we elected a "rude" leader


Ah yeah, what else do you want to transport in this thread? I remember talking you about your bedroom skills. And now we´re in the field of politics. Maybe it´s time for you to go to your bedroom and watch CNN (or maybe FOX hehe) instead of spoiling the thread here. Already forgotten that your role here is "THE TURD"  (I like to use new learned vocabulary  )



JimM said:


> Not true. I picture Del out in his shop working diligently on one as we speak.


That´s the good news of this day   Have fun, guys!


----------



## HarleyT (Apr 26, 2018)

Lol, so you have no vids of your "work"? Just make references to Stihl's vids?

I/We would like to see a vid of your "gauges" being used. Not an imaginary image "derived" after watching a vid from Stihl's site.
So the gauge will rest on the shoulders of the rivet?

If someone brought you a chain, how long will it take you to produce a gauge that will/would work?


----------



## HarleyT (Apr 26, 2018)

hannes69 said:


> On this page you´ll find a video with the Stihl tool in action (FL1- FL5): https://www.stihl.com/sharpening-saw-chain.aspx My type 1 is the same.
> The rubber band is a misunderstanding. You don´t need that and won´t use it during filing. My girlfriend was not at home when taking the photos, and I haven´t the right amount of arms to hold this thing on its place and making sharp photos in parallel. So I used the band as a simple holder, nothing else.
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah "learned" my arse.


----------



## Stihl 041S (Apr 26, 2018)

hannes69 said:


> Maybe I have not convinced anybody, true. I offered and showed something. And I tried to show some new aspects of this topic, give some advantages and disadvantages. Is it really my job to convince somebody here? Am I selling cars or insurances? You have now a tutorial, some photos and ap iece of software. You can do whatever you want with it. Maybe nothing. Say bad words about it. Like it. Use it and give no feedback. Use it and give feedback. Do something to make it better. It´s all your choice. Of course some scenarios are prefered by me, I am a human and not a machine so having some feelings.
> It is not a problem for me, that my solution has no value for you. You have your own setup and choose the things that suit the best your setup.
> I have found my solution for my setup and I published it in the thinking that maybe some of the millions of chainsaw users can make use of it.
> If it´s not you it´s maybe another guy. No solution is suitable for everybody.
> ...


As you have just done judging me without knowing me.
Yet I can judge some things about you. Accurately....I’ve done jobs you can never do. 
Hobby? The craftsman were taught how to deal and understand such people 
And if you read the other posts you will see I said we all do it.
I will comment if you want


----------



## JimM (Apr 26, 2018)

HarleyT said:


> Well, I am sure that he is.
> 
> Speaking as a turd.....


Is there a sarcasm emoji? I need to find one. I’m used to dealing with folks with a bit more ground clearance for the knuckles.


----------



## HarleyT (Apr 26, 2018)

JimM said:


> Is there a sarcasm emoji? I need to find one. I’m used to dealing with folks with a bit more ground clearance for the knuckles.


Sorry, I use a shotgun when in a fight....
Lots of farkers may take a pellet.


----------



## hannes69 (Apr 26, 2018)

HarleyT said:


> so you have no vids of your "work"? Just make references to Stihl's vids?


Exactly. I´m not at court to give you evidences of my work. You already have photos and now you have a Stihl video showing exactly my type 1, the handling of type 2 is the same.
And like I am not in a position to request anything of you as I have learned now, you are definitely not in the position to request anything from me. The rules apply to anyone here 
I f you deliver something useful to me, maybe you can request something. We are not at this point at the moment.
When I´m answering your questions, than it´s mostly because others may ask the same questions too, and so they are already answered.



HarleyT said:


> So the gauge will rest on the shoulders of the rivet?


type 2, yes.



HarleyT said:


> If someone brought you a chain, how long will it take you to produce a gauge that will/would work?


type 1: when buying better Dremel attachments that are more suitable for the job, 30 minutes
type 2: if the material thickness is appropriate, 15 minutes; if not, I don´t know.

I speak of actually producing the gauge. So the numbers and measurments of the chain are already given, like the 2 chains I already measured. I consider the measuring part not as my job. I requested this to the community here in my starting post. I can add these numbers of new chains in my software.
If someone really wants me to make such a gauge specifically for his personal chain, then i would measure this chain, but then we are talking about business and money. I will not make this business as I earn money otherwise.
I´m talking in this thread about 'making your own raker depth gauge', So you have to make it on your own and if your personal chain is not already measured, then yiu have to do it yourself.
My software then allows the calculations. You can already now enter new numbers in my software and within the software there is already explained what to measure.
You won´t get a ready to use solution from me. what you get is help to help yourself.

And once again, I really don´t answer this to you, my little turdie, I already know that regardless of what I say, you´ll find something to critisize. If I understood it right, this seems to be part of the definition of the 'turd in the punchbowl'. I think in forum life they are more often simply called 'the troll'. Take whatever you like 
When I´m feeling bored, I´ll maybe feed the troll 



Stihl 041S said:


> As you have just done judging me without knowing me.


Yeah, same rules for everybody.



Stihl 041S said:


> I’ve done jobs you can never do.


So what? Everybody can do things, others can´t do. You can for sure things do that I can´t and vice versa, what´s the message?


----------



## HarleyT (Apr 26, 2018)

Arrogance.

That is the difference....


----------



## Stihl 041S (Apr 26, 2018)

hannes69 said:


> Exactly. I´m not at court to give you evidences of my work. You already have photos and now you have a Stihl video showing exactly my type 1, the handling of type 2 is the same.
> And like I am not in a position to request anything of you as I have learned now, you are definitely not in the position to request anything from me. The rules apply to anyone here
> I f you deliver something useful to me, maybe you can request something. We are not at this point at the moment.
> When I´m answering your questions, than it´s mostly because others may ask the same questions too, and so they are already answered.
> ...


Responding to your statement about knowing nothing about you.


----------



## HarleyT (Apr 26, 2018)




----------



## TheTone (Apr 26, 2018)

Hannes69, firstly, let me say that your idea is fantastic, as you may have noted in my first comment. Some may use it and perhaps improve it. Secondly, your English is far better than some native speakers on this site; you have my admiration (2 years of German in college). Now for the howevers: it soon became apparent that there might be a couple of problems in your dealing with this site - (1) "thin skin" that is, taking criticism too personally, and (2) a perceived (by the reader) attitude of superiority rather than objectivity. The best way to handle criticism is not by defending, but rather by asking: taking what I said, how would you make it better? This not only deflects the blow, but puts the ball in the opponent's court, so to speak. Again, thank you for posting; it may take root in fertile ground.


----------



## HarleyT (Apr 26, 2018)

Questions are not "criticism", in any country.


----------



## HarleyT (Apr 26, 2018)

All of life can be explained in "plain geometry".

But it will not serve any practical purposes.


----------



## hannes69 (Apr 26, 2018)

Stihl 041S said:


> I will comment if you want


Why not? 
Beside that, that´s the next thing I really don´t understand, the undertone of being hostile towards me in some posts.
Either there´s a really huge amount of misunderstanding flying around here, or some of you have found an interesting target in my person.
But feel free to argue whatever you want. I think that most of the people taking part in this forum live in countries where freedom of speech is applicable, so make use of it.

-----
And it would be really nice to talk 90% about the topic here, and here and then the other 10% about things around that. 
If not, it´s ok too, I personally am willing to discuss mainly on topic and then I´ll simply ignore the rest. Ok, sometimes it´s very good to go offtopic, it´s pure entertainment  Had enough of that today.
Raker filing is serious business as we already know...



Stihl 041S said:


> Responding to your statement about knowing nothing about you.


In Germany we use the following saying: "Like you shout into the forest, so it comes back to you". 
It´s as simple like that.
If rude behaviour is granted to me, maybe this is reflected back. When carefully reading you should see that I´m normally not the one starting with this behaviour, it´s a natural consequence to answer such a behaviour the according way.
But so the story goes on and on... Once again at court defending myself.
Another saying in Germany: "You are right, and I find peace of my mind." Some truth in it. 



TheTone said:


> Hannes69, firstly, let me say that your idea is fantastic, as you may have noted in my first comment. Some may use it and perhaps improve it.


Thanks!



TheTone said:


> (1) "thin skin" that is, taking criticism too personally


Yeah, maybe one of my weaknesses. Everyone has to learn something. Some about raker filing, some about the way dealing with criticism 



TheTone said:


> (2) a perceived (by the reader) attitude of superiority rather than objectivity.


Yeah, common misunderstanding. I know that people may thinking about me being arrogant or that I´m feeling superior, but in truth it isn´t like that. Because here in the forum you only have to deal with my language, it must have to do with my kind of language (I don´t mean the language barrier thing). That´s hard to change. I only can assure that arrogance is not my purpose. 



TheTone said:


> it may take root in fertile ground.


Would be nice.


----------



## Del_ (Apr 26, 2018)

JimM said:


> Not true. I picture Del out in his shop working diligently on one as we speak.



I do find the topic of great interest.

But I haven't sharpened a chain is ten days or more.

I do plan on giving it a try.

I also plan of give Hannes a fair chance to present his topic.


----------



## 46 Poulan (Apr 26, 2018)

To make your own raker gauge or not to make your on raker gauge---That is the question!!!


----------



## Westboastfaller (Apr 26, 2018)

hannes69 said:


> I don´t understand what you are meaning here. I think that a chain with a series of various length cutters never will cut correctly. That has nothing to do with raker depth, it simply should be avoided during the sharpening. I think the human eye is very good in estimating cutter length when comparing some of them, it shouldn´t be a problem to hold them on a similar length
> 
> .


Well, even teeth would be even rakers. You make a great argument here in this sense. I wouldn't have a need for your raker file, if any raker file at all. If my teeth are maintained with 3/8 "type one gauge" then I have an option to buy a .325 husky plate gauge; so when its not getting enough bite then the .325 will sit lower. I can also go below the tie straps and butt the middle front tit up to the front of the raker instead of hooking it in the back and resting it on a one tie strap. If I needed anything more I could free hand a couple strokes from that point with accuracy.
The WHOLE ATTRACTION is more accurate numbers means I may have the ability to finally run different cutter lengths without proplems.
That's what its all about.

Your in an Engineer's world. I have done this professionaly for 30 yrs. Honestly I don't need you to talk a word of existing products at this time please.
I am vary familiar with why the saddle styles are junk. The near .060" that is needed near the end of the chain life to equal a new chain depth; is not new to me. I got these numbers, and much more, from Carlton.about 15 yrs ago in a little book called 'Everything you wanted to know about saw chain" I will share 'the much more' later.


I want to know the physical capabilities of the gauge only please, as it sits without the calculator at this time.

Its a plate with an open rectangle. The closed end of the rectangle butts up to the back of the raker to 'keep it in position'. Due to a lower front contact height it maintains more accurate numbers throughout the chains life as it sits on the rivet opposed to other plate gauges that rest on one or two tie strap. That's it right?
If a want another angle for the same chain type. I must increase.... (for more raker height) OR decrease.. (for less). .; the closed triangle end on a new gauge?

That's it right?


----------



## Stihl 041S (Apr 26, 2018)

hannes69........
My post about the Dunn Kruger Effect was based on your input.
New to saws.......it just is a variable. That’s all
Engineering type......just a variable. That’s all
Just like altitude, saw size, cutter type, bar length, sprocket size, porting, tree size,tree type, alive or dead, how long dead, geometry of cutter, skip or not, raker height as nausium(all)
I’ve been around sharpening chains since the 50s
And tool and cutter grinding since the 70s.
We have a saying too..”This ain’t my first Rodeo”
I do not figure speeds and feeds on the lathe it mill.
There are too many variables.
It’s done by feel based on experience

And I meant perhaps.....you don’t realize how many variables get kicked into the mix of raker height.

Important? Yes

Be all end all....no.

I read a lot of “yeah but...” and reexplaining and not answering folks questions. And some folks you don’t have to. Lol

My point of diminishing returns?
I got saws from 22 to 137 cc.
6 size chains
Full Comp, semi and full skip
3 cutter profiles. Some square grind
From at least 7 manufacturers.
And the same bar fits from a 43cc to 100cc I’m building.
And I run from 16”-41” on the same saw

Fresh pine that cuts like butter.
20+ year dead locust that throws sparks.
How many gauges?

I also said we all do it. Me too I have my DOOH moments.

You started using the word Hobby.

Well they taught me that hobby at work so I could work with folks. And was proud to make all the rivets for carbon fiber for the first European fighter. We looked at ALL the variables we could.

So you told a lot about your self and I used that info.
They were variables. You made judgements about me.
Without the info.

And we have another saying to go along with the first.
“And I got a trunk full of Buckles “

Enjoy the forum. But folks here also have some knowledge and why they make the decisions they do.

They will ......let me restate that. Most will give all the help you need.

I maybe over reacted about your reactions to my posts.

If you think so. Sorry.

If I can ever help....let me know.

PAX


----------



## Westboastfaller (Apr 27, 2018)

I'll touch on what Rob (Stihl 014s) was saying a little more. I was going to mention a few things before my second to last post that you quoted yesterday. One being careful not to talk down to people with mass amounts of hands on experience. You can not cheat nature my friend.
" Nature can not be tricked or cheated, she will give up to you the object of your struggles only when you have paid her price," ~Napoleon Hill.
I will quote a Mechanical Engineer/ saw builder that came back on here after a 6 yrs absence.
His response to a question (going on memory here) was as follows....." I'm a Mechanical Engineer so I could give you a very long and technical explanation but I learned my lesson when I did that 6 yrs ago on here. I was known as the 'Doogie Houser of chainsaws"

Lol ..before my time. The crowds were rougher then. ( Sentence above references Philbert's earlier comment also)
So you got to watch not to fall into that. We have the KISS method. Its an acronym and stands for Keep It Simple Stupid. Its a 'corporate expression' or a "what not to do when training a salesman and such.
You are making things more complicated, Take little bites at a time.

Be clear on the physical raker gauge first then move on to the software calculator and then the possibilities of people making it.
Don't fall into giving lectures about cutting so much and never wonder into that if they are not asking as you did with me. OK now I'll blow and wipe my nose and get started..lol

Note* when you multi quote with multi members in one post then it makes it a ton of work to cut everything and address you back even if a was too make manny posts.
This is a little phone and my hand are cold, stiff and numb.

Little bites and a little more direct to my questions would be very much appreciated
Thank you


----------



## hannes69 (Apr 27, 2018)

Del_ said:


> I do plan on giving it a try.


Very pleased about that 



46 Poulan said:


> To make your own raker gauge or not to make your on raker gauge---That is the question!!!


Yeah, we already got sometimes there, that this topic seems to have a philosophical dimension (at least to me  )



Westboastfaller said:


> I am vary familiar with why the saddle styles are junk. The near .060" that is needed near the end of the chain life to equal a new chain depth; is not new to me.


Yes. I´m happy now to talk about the real topic and that we share some same opinions or facts.



Westboastfaller said:


> Its a plate with an open rectangle. The closed end of the rectangle butts up to the back of the raker to 'keep it in position'. Due to a lower front contact height it maintains more accurate numbers throughout the chains life as it sits on the rivet opposed to other plate gauges that rest on one or two tie strap. That's it right?


Absolutely right  For mathematical reasons the lower contact height leads to a better maintained cutting angle towards the end of a chain´s life. The top of the rivet was just the lowest point of the chain I found. I f you find a mechanical way to make somehow this lowest point even lower, this would be even better. 
I know you want to leave alone the software for the moment, but you can use it for different purposes: Here you can play around with the numbers and you see what happens. It is not as simple that the cutting angle gets less with increasing cutter wearing, it has a certain distribution of values. So maybe the angle starts with a certain value, increases slightly during the first quarter of wearing, then decreases slightly during the second quarter and decreases a little bit more during the second half. 



Westboastfaller said:


> If a want another angle for the same chain type. I must increase.... (for more raker height) OR decrease.. (for less).


Though being much easier to produce, now we are at the weakness of type 2:
With type 1, you have two parameters you can influence: you take a metal sheet for your gauge with a certain thickness. If too thin, it will be instable and maybe bend. Too thick is more difficult to cut and the secon parameter called 'pivot length' by me gets very short which may not be desireable.
Using type 1 you mainly make use of the second parameter, the pivot length. Like the buyable ones with the two settings 'soft' and 'hard'. You take advantage of this parameter and choose now your personal 'hard' or s'soft' or in between setting and with the calculator you can calculate it and predict it.
Type 2 doesn´t have this parameter due to its easy priniciple of construction. 
There you rest only with material thickness. So as I already mentioned, you are lucky at this point and common material thicknesses lead by coincidence to your desired result (but you can predict the result of course with the calculator), if not, you have to alter the thickness of your raw tool now. 
And that´s an interesting point to discuss, maybe you have some ideas in this regard. I´m not so much into metal business, so... 
I thought about it and I came at least to the conclusion that probably it easier to remove material than adding one, if it should be accurate. And removing in an homogenous manner is not that easy. For home-use without special equipment I thought about hand grinding and polishing. So taking something like according sand paper or the right 'powder' (don´t know the name of it) and reducing the material with circular soft movings in a meditative manner... This should remove the material evenly.
I told the story to a guy into metal business and he mentioned the use of acid. He meant that normal steel can be treated with certain acids and the result will be even. Never tried this technique, but sounds possible.

For 3/8 chain (normal and low profile) coincidence helped me and I got away with common given material thickness: For 3/8 normal profile 1.2mm (47 mil) steel leads to cutting angles in the ballpark of 6.5° - 7.0°, for 1.0mm (39 mil) stainless steel I have cutting angles in the ballpark of 7.5° - 8.5°. For 3/8 low profile chain 1.2mm steel leads to cutting angles of 6.0° - 6.5°.
I dont´have an overview of common sold metal sheet types. In Germany you can buy normal 1.2mm steel and 1.0mm stainless steel in every hardware store, it is very common. 
Maybe specialized metal stores have more types offered?
And maybe there are better methods of altering metal thickness than my short mentioned ideas? Here I hope for the community´s help


----------



## hannes69 (Apr 27, 2018)

Stihl 041S said:


> I’ve been around sharpening chains since the 50s
> And tool and cutter grinding since the 70s.
> We have a saying too..”This ain’t my first Rodeo”


I have a small feeling that (at least it smells a little bit like that) we are talking here about the old "craftsmen - academic - world - war". 
Both worlds coexist, sometimes there are some shares, sometimes there´s confrontation.
Ideally they share much, but that´s maybe the case only for very few people. Maybe a technical engineer with a very high preference for practical work in the laboratory. There maybe the two worlds go hand in hand.
On the other side most people are more on one of the two sides, that´s the nature of it.
I stand more on the 'academic' or theoretical side. That´s my nature of person, and that fits my skills more.
I´m aware that here in the forum I´m maybe in the smaller party with this approach. Of course due to the nature of the materia here. A chainsaw is a practical machine, we do practical work with it, use it and make something out of it. 
I got to the topic 'from the other side'. In fact I came to the topic of chainsaws like the German saying 'the virgin to a child'. 
I always helped my father with wood work, producing fire wood for personal use in the family´s small forest. I used the axe, carried wood, helped with transport and so on. I never touched the chainsaw or felled a tree.
Last year my father died. Noone wants to sell the small family wood or let someone else do the work there. My mother and my sister won´t touch the chainsaw. So that´s my business now. Not as a duty, I like to.
I made a course learning things about security, theoretical felling techniques and so on. And the course had its practical and we did some felling and limbing work in the forest.
In the meantime I did some personal work with the saw and it makes fun. I disassembled the whole 034S leaving alone the crankcase. I cleaned all parts of it and restored faulty parts. I learned to tune the carb. I´m not capable of hand filing so I bought a small grinder and learned to use it for my needs. I worked practical with the saw and read a lot about the topic in the net, mainly in forums like this here. I came across BobL´s thread about the FOP gauge and was fascinated. Then I made my personal raker gauge, wrote the software and published all of it here. That´s the story.
I never pretended to have decades of practical chainsaw experience. I know what a skip chain is, but I don´t own one and maybe never will use one (no personal need). 
My approach is theoretical because a) it suits my nature and b) because of the lack of practical experience. I have to work with what I have...
I´m very well aware that many if not the most people here in this forum know practically way way more about saws, felling, chains and so on than me. 
I only concentrated isolated on one specific point of the chain story. A point that falls well into my theoretical skills. 
So though lacking practical aspects, I thought that I could give something back to the community that maybe many here aren´t capable of.
I can do geometry, do calculations, do some programming. And my English is hopefully good enough to communicate this all. Development goes further, at least my software supported approach is something new, as Del_ already mentioned.
And hopefully my practical side is at least good enough to brifge over to the practical world. At least I could produce my depth gauges. And I have not two left hands as we say in Germany, I can use the chainsaw to make my own fire wood.
So maybe we can get out of this theory-praxis trap.
Some arguments here make me feel like 'here comes Mr. Clever and Smart, hiding behind words, theory, a computer, absolutely no clue about real life' and some of you are describing me like 'the king looking down to the hard working farmers'.
Simply no. It cost me some energy and time to make this all happen. This has something to do with idealism. 
I hope that some of you may read between the lines what sort of person I also am.
So hopefully these 'two worlds' find together. I´m a theoretical person hopefully interested enough in practical things. And I hoped to find some people here from the 'practical side' who don´t fear using software or some theoretical explanations.



Stihl 041S said:


> I got saws from 22 to 137 cc.
> 6 size chains
> Full Comp, semi and full skip
> 3 cutter profiles. Some square grind
> ...


Maybe too many for your use case? 
Did I already mention that my approach is maybe not suitable for everyone´s needs 
Maybe I underrated reality in this point. I assumed that many users maybe only do variations in bar length, chainsaw power, semi chisel / full chisel. Then you only need on raker depth gauge (assuming one cutting angle needed). You need more when using different chain pitches, different driving link gauges (type 2, type 1 should be independant), different cutter profiles (nomal/low profile) and different manufacturers. 
I have no clue how this is distributed in reality. I only assumed that many users have this kind of setup, where the variations lead to only one or maybe two different raker depth gauges. I won´t start a poll here 



Stihl 041S said:


> Enjoy the forum. But folks here also have some knowledge and why they make the decisions they do.


Absolutely yes. See argumentation above 



Stihl 041S said:


> I maybe over reacted about your reactions to my posts.
> 
> If you think so. Sorry.
> 
> If I can ever help....let me know.


No problem. Another saying in Germany: "Who likes to deal out, will sometimes land on the receiving end".
BTW arrogance could be detected on 'both sides'. The theorist can´t understand the aversion of practical folk towards software and things like that, the practical one can´t understand the aversion of the theorist to simply work with tools and why the heck there may be reasons to work with numbers, measurements and computers all the time. 
There won´t be usable results in the end if one of the sides is neglected I think.


----------



## hannes69 (Apr 27, 2018)

Westboastfaller said:


> One being careful not to talk down to people with mass amounts of hands on experience.


Wasn´t my intention, see above my response to Stihl 041S.



Westboastfaller said:


> The crowds were rougher then.


Then maybe I would have to decided to better not post here 



Westboastfaller said:


> We have the KISS method. Its an acronym and stands for Keep It Simple Stupid. Its a 'corporate expression' or a "what not to do when training a salesman and such.
> You are making things more complicated, Take little bites at a time.


You are very right here. I´ll try to make it better in the future 
One reason for it as a small excuse lies in the forum software. I can edit a post only within 24 hours. So I had the feeling that I have to pack all necesssary information into the starting post (and that was not possible due to 10000 character limitation, so there are two starting posts  ). So when missing out important information, writing something wrong and so on, the corrections would follow somewhere maybe on page 10 of the thread.
There will be discussion and development, so all the information simply can´t be posted at once, but I wanted to be rather precise when starting it. Maybe a little bit overkill I admit.
And yes, I fall sometimes into the trap like 'simple is stupid and boring, complex is clever and fascinating'. My fault, yes.



Westboastfaller said:


> OK now I'll blow and wipe my nose and get started..lol


Do that  



Westboastfaller said:


> Note* when you multi quote with multi members in one post then it makes it a ton of work to cut everything and address you back even if a was too make manny posts.


Hmm. That has to do with the manner I personally read threads. Either I read whole of a thread (not only the answers directed to my person) or I simply don´t read a thread. 
But it´s no problem to split by person, if I understand it right that this is your wish.


----------



## Westboastfaller (Apr 27, 2018)

hannes69 said:


> Absolutely right  For mathematical reasons the lower contact height leads to a better maintained cutting angle towards the end of a chain´s life. The top of the rivet was just the lowest point of the chain I found. I f you find a mechanical way to make somehow this lowest point even lower, this would be even better.
> I know you want to leave alone the software for the moment, but you can use it for different purposes: Here you can play around with the numbers and you see what happens. It is not as simple that the cutting angle gets less with increasing cutter wearing, it has a certain distribution of values. So maybe the angle starts with a certain value, increases slightly during the first quarter of wearing, then decreases slightly during the second quarter and decreases a little bit more during the second half.


 IDK
Since it pertains more to the last 1/4 or 1/3 of its life as the calculator shows, then the easiest way would to make a notch at the other end that butts into the back of the low raker. May need to widen the overhang a bit so it can't hang on a rivet. That's as low as low can be It looks like you are really close to that as it is. This way it won't alter what is optimal on the "frontend" Honestly at this point you are best to free hand another one of two flat strokes after your last gauge then run 'er home. I always tell people when teaching them how to work a progressive plate gauge is that " It's like kissing you sister...It feels strange at first but if you do it long enough, you'll get used to it.
That's not a joke about the deep south either, they don't use raker gauges OK stop..(no hate mail please people. My point is they are awkward especially with chisel chain as the raker is offset to the outside. I always do it from one side and flip the saw 180°. When the chain points to my left side pinch the bottom of the file gauge with my left hand. So there isn't hardly anywhere to grab it. No room for gloves or nothing. If I got a bit to file then I free hand it on a steeper angle then drop the gauge on. When you are at the bottom their is the most filing to do. To much messing around then its just not worth it for me personally. I also would run a fair amount of teeth and use a very high rev for limbs and brush with a lot of hook with softwoods so I find its good for just so many revolutions and the chain fly's off more noticeably one morning or one afternoon. That is not good. That beats up all the fresh parts that I need to keep fresh to prevent that. Then I have to sharper. Another down side to not using square chisel for that job. The dynamics are much different. They use their chain up and compensate with cutter top plate angles in clean wood. So they can have a higher raker then.

Yes I noticed it reached a peak angle of 7° rise at 100 and 120k (think it was) cutter wear. 125k is 1/8". That's were it declines. I was going to ask you about that. You would think it would only decline. IDK why. Its the other way around with trigonometry and finding greater degrees so its must be some other reason? Look at roofing. A 12" rise and a 12" run is a 12:12 pitch or 45°. Half your rise then it will be a 6:12 pitch like a Humboldt felling cut. but the degree
Is not 22.5 but 26.8 I think it is.
Go to 3:12 pitch and its 14+°
In plumbing they still call the fittings 22 and a half's..lol. Goes to show you they don't need trig to send **** down hill. Grade 12 Algebra yes for 4th year to calculate X amount of rain in X amount of time On X size roof..ect.
Another thing I noticed is you used the low pro for the standard raker and the reg for your raker. Can you get us the numbers for the type one with the same chain to please It kind of makes it inconclusive otherwise. As I said, I read the end numbers at the end of the chain that Carlton put out some years ago but I've never seen anything close to this kind of data. Its really cool. Its great for a guy that's teaching too. Just having the data on the charts to show the importance of a raker gauge and the right one. Its worth what its worth to the individual. I certainly see it. I could possibly see saw racing having a look at this. Its another tool other than the clock . then you have the "just a little OCD people. Never underestimate them.
Just looking at the stats helped me a lot already as far as where the teeth hit peak angle with 1/8 wear. It pays to get rid of what would be the longer teeth...sorry.. just thinking out loud..lol


----------



## Del_ (Apr 27, 2018)

Westboastfaller said:


> Yes I noticed it reached a peak angle of 7° rise at 100 and 120k (think it was) cutter wear. 125k is 1/8". That's were it declines. I was going to ask you about that. You would think it would only decline. IDK why. Its the other way around with trigonometry and finding greater degrees so its must be some other reason? Look at roofing. A 12" rise and a 12" run is a 12:12 pitch or 45°. Half your rise then it will be a 6:12 pitch like a Humboldt felling cut. but the degree



Just a guess on my part.

The lower height of the back of the tooth combined with the greater distance between the tooth and raker comes more into play.


----------



## hannes69 (Apr 27, 2018)

Westboastfaller said:


> Since it pertains more to the last 1/4 or 1/3 of its life as the calculator shows, then the easiest way would to make a notch at the other end that butts into the back of the low raker.


Maybe you can make that clearer what you mean exactly here. Where exactly is the notch and what influence has this notch when filing down a new full height raker and when filing down the already shortened raker of a worn chain?



Westboastfaller said:


> That's were it declines. I was going to ask you about that. You would think it would only decline.


It´s the chain cutter´s geometry. It´s not a single parameter, it´s the combination of them. So your mentioned peak angle not always is to find on the given position, it varies depending on the chain type / manufacturer.



Westboastfaller said:


> Another thing I noticed is you used the low pro for the standard raker and the reg for your raker. Can you get us the numbers for the type one with the same chain to please It kind of makes it inconclusive otherwise.


Here screenshots of the software, showing the numbers for 1. Stihl and gauge type1, 2. Stihl and gauge type2, 3. Carlton Low Profile and gauge type1, 4. Carlton Low Profile and gauge type2.









You see: For the normal 3/8 profile I used the 1.2mm material for both gauges, for Carlton Low profile I used 1.0mm steel for type 1, and for the gauge type 2 working correctly, it has to sit onto the rivet directly after the raker, not like one farther away for the Stihl gauge type 2!
That´s the point I already mentioned, though only having the possibility to alter the thickness of the material, you can at least choose from at least 2 different rivets to sit on. So to find out the right combination of one certain rivet with a material thickness.



Westboastfaller said:


> Just looking at the stats helped me a lot already as far as where the teeth hit peak angle with 1/8 wear.


Glad that some of my numbers are of help


----------



## Stihl 041S (Apr 27, 2018)

hannes69.
I’ve gotten away from the .....shall we say Engineer / Workman schools of thought.
When I worked in research I would wear my blue shop apron when I talked to the workmen and my white lab coat when I talked to the engineers. Or there was usually no respect given.
Sad isn’t it. I got a lot of respect for both sides of “The Wall”

I have a lot of different chainsaws and bars. I do use them.
When I retire I hope to do relief work full time. Always something different.

No meanness meant in any way but your use is sort of narrow.
Like driving back and forth to work on the same road every day at the same time.

My cutting at times has been driving a new road they goes from gravel to asphalt and back at high speeds ......at night.....in the rain....with poor lights. Lol always something new.

Better example. A machinist running the same CNC machine making the same part. The engineers from the tooling world and the machine tool world and the material world are going to help him trim time and costs. Less material on the casting. A little more free machining material. In the long run it all adds up.

We went to make a 2 second improvement in the time for a cars airbag for $1500 (1980s) and they wondered if it was worth it.
My Mentor .....an old Transylvanian who graduated from university in 1938 looked at them and said “can’t you do arithmetic? Not math...ARITHMETIC!!!!”
Loved that old man.......at millions of airbags a year......do the math. He was an Engineer!!!

On the other side......about 1986 a race car company set a record for a closed loop on a race course of 227 mph. $380,000 car.
Factory race car.

A privateteer, Junior Johnson( who shall go unnamed) took a then $70,000 stock car(more now!!!) and did 240......

The excuses began....other body parts can be used, different gearing....we could do better!!!

Junior said “no problem.....I ain’t tweaked all I can tweak either....when you want to do this?”

The factory team went home.

I don’t look at the other side so much anymore.....and I should......my Mentor made me look at things differently......I just see it less often.

I’ll buy a roll of chain and make a gauge. Thank you for your work.
It will be like better headlights and a road map.


----------



## hannes69 (Apr 27, 2018)

And here a variation of Carlton Low Pro chain + gauge type 2.
The only parameter that is changed is the material thickness, in this case my common 1.0mm steel instead of the 1.2mm above.


Now you see the need for maybe an in between setting of the material thickness. By using 1.2mm (47 mil) the cutting angles are a little bit too low, by using 1.0mm (39 mil) a little bit too high (assuming a personal taste of 6.5° - 7.5°). 
To maintain the initial value of 7.1° of the new chain, a material thickness of 1.07mm (44 mil) would be perfect. Noone here could sell me 44 mil thick material, so I would have to make the 44 mil out of my 47 mil material. Grinding, polish, acid  Or in my case: I stick with the little bit too low setting, given it´s used with an all purpose electrical chainsaw and my girlfriend uses it as well. No need for a too agressive setup


----------



## hannes69 (Apr 27, 2018)

Here some pictures showing what´s going on with the raker depth gauges during the cutter wearing. The proportions should be right, so these pics exactly reflect the numbers of the calculator for the Stihl 3/8 chain.



You see that the position of the pivot point slightly changes. And you see that type 1 is a tiny little bit better whe nstarting off, very soon till the end type 2 is better, the pivot point then always sits lower (when mentally lengthen the tool accordingly)
Maybe these pictures can be useful when discussing certain aspects, you can edit them with common tools like Paint, Word and so on, making some markings, arrows,... and then re upload it.


----------



## hannes69 (Apr 27, 2018)

Stihl 041S said:


> I’ve gotten away from the .....shall we say Engineer / Workman schools of thought.


It´s better like that 



Stihl 041S said:


> When I worked in research I would wear my blue shop apron when I talked to the workmen and my white lab coat when I talked to the engineers.






Stihl 041S said:


> No meanness meant in any way but your use is sort of narrow.


Yep. But every chainsaw user has to make the rakers go down, it doesn´t matter if you own 1 chainsaw or 100 different saws / setups. Maybe you give away all your chain to a service, but then the problem itself stays the same, but now the service man has it in hands 
Otherwise it´s your job. And now? We have all the possibilities, one to take. Take a constant raker depth gauge. Really? Making x file strokes every sharpening. Really? Remains buying a progressive raker depth gauge for every chain type and use it. That´s similar to my gauge 1. You can buy them all or make your own. 
And then finally you can make yourself measurements with a digital angle finder, calipers,... And file down the raker, measure again, file down more,...
Don´t know if there are even more possibilities, but you definitely have to choose one. Independant of being a pro or having a narrow use 
So the interesting question at that point would be: If my approach is more appropriate for narrow usage (which may be so, maybe not) what do you personally think would be the best approach for people with a wider use? 
'Critisizing' other´s approach is very easy, so now to the difficult part


----------



## Stihl 041S (Apr 27, 2018)

You were posting while I was editing. Lol
Experience is the key. Even to just getting the input for the equation. 
The answer is there may be no universal answer. 
But read the last line of my edit


----------



## KiwiBro (Apr 27, 2018)

DAF. Job done. It ain't bwain surgery, people.


----------



## Stihl 041S (Apr 27, 2018)

KiwiBro said:


> DAF. Job done. It ain't bwain surgery, people.


The term is rocket surgery........


----------



## Del_ (Apr 27, 2018)

I usually use one chain on a saw and sharpen it on the bar until that chain is gone, or damaged beyond use.

So if my combination of saw power, bar length, wood type, cutter type and depth gauge height are not cutting like I feel they should, I reduce the height of the depth gauge. The only chain I use is Stihl RS 3/8 and .404 and I have hundreds of loops from a tree service that used a chain until it was basterized and then put on a new chain.

As an arborist I do a lot of in the tree cutting with a Stihl 200T, I have two. On the ground it is a couple of Stihl 036 pro's, a couple of MS460's(20 and 25inch) and then rarely a Hushy 3120 with 36 inch bar. I also have an almost mint 090 hidden away. I have experimented a lot over the past 30 years and also own a Stihl USG with square grinding attachments. I play with that too when I need to get my chains back to good after I've filed them wonky. The I usually go back to hand filing. I am of very low production output as it is just me these days. Solo.

In many trees I use a hand powered saw as mostly I do tree care.

Just some background to show that I'm basically a amateur in the chain saw cutting arena. I do have some saws that cut pretty well though but I certainly no GTG racing competitor. I do follow every bit I can glean from those folks though including photos. I mostly square file but not always.

I lean toward being a non classically educated engineer and at this I fall far short.

I had a gut feeling where Hannes was going right from his first posting. I am so glad to see those with much real world experience in both engineering and sawing joining in.

I believe almost everyone here can benefit at least a little. Myself, I can learn a lot! Retaining it is another matter.

There's my unsolicited bio. Please be kind.

Also please don't quote or respond to my post as it will only litter up this thread. Like it if you like it.


----------



## hannes69 (Apr 28, 2018)

Stihl 041S said:


> I’ll buy a roll of chain and make a gauge. Thank you for your work.
> It will be like better headlights and a road map.






Stihl 041S said:


> Experience is the key. Even to just getting the input for the equation.
> The answer is there may be no universal answer.


Yeah, wise words


----------



## Westboastfaller (Apr 28, 2018)

hannes69 said:


> Maybe you can make that clearer what you mean exactly here. Where exactly is the notch and what influence has this notch when filing down a new full height raker and when filing down the already shortened raker of a worn chain?
> 
> 
> ,
> ...


https://www.arboristsite.com/commun...l-indicator-feedback-on-marketability.295188/
It wouldn't work anyway. I'll explain the other way as that way would be a bit low unless you had a bumper.

I was/am talking about two gauges. One on each end. Two gauges so you don't disturd (too low)what is 'optimal' or the best numbers that work best for the first 'half ' of the chains life. Then a lower one for the second half. Perhaps you could still 'shorten it up' and find its still good for both. As you pointed out, the lower point of contact (POC) Makes it most affective as the tooth wears. I see its largely to do with the combination when the raker gauge angle is decreased a great deal . A single flat stroke is probably equal to three angled strokes. It may not have much affect on the front numbers with the greater gauge angle anyway?

What I mean by 'shorten it up'
The end of the gauge can still sit accross the top of the chain and be lower than what you have but it needs a hole for the raker with at least enough material beyond the bottom end hole. (Could be a drill hole on a flat plate would work good as anything, as well easy. Especially for a prototype.
Grind it down to where you want to start testing. You mentioned something about a software calculator? I'm sure I heard something about a software calculator lol
I wish I was set up to toy around with the lengths and numbers. Its not possible at this time. I could freak out on this. OCD out. Very cool.
Just keep buzzing little bits off at a time and see where its at.
I would try one on the other end of the flat plate that's a little steeper if needed. I bet you could get even more consistent data.

I see in your theory as to 'why' and 'where'. Its 100% correct. Its now reality which only has to do with that I realize what's happening. Nothing to do with the software data. I will take you at face value, that so is your software calculator reality.
The rest is preference and convenience perhaps as to where it goes from there. I would personally modify the one in the link by grinding it back. That would be good for me as its flat and I could make a two in one if there was an advantage for it?


I'm not a fan of the bend personality.
I use the type on the left of the link in the 7th post. I free hand the higher ones on a sharper angle when I have let them get too high . I hold the gauge in my lips so I don't mix up hard end with soft end while doing this. Often It has enemies like snow around me as well on one side I remove the glove then do three rakers then back on the glove; when its extremely cold weather. Flat plate for me. The one in the picture is for a.325 but I use both for 3/8.
I use a lot of hook for cedar but if there is too much hemlock mix then the saw will want to clutch out with the use of the felling dogs on the angle cuts. Using lower hanging aftermarket dogs will change the dynamics also making it then much worse again. The .325 allows me to reduce the hook and get a lower raker. Lots of tricks. Or I can make a pie felling cut an hemlock and take a 3:12 pitch from the truck and same from the stump. Many things to balance and that's the way I like it. Its all balancing your situation. I don't take the time to keep all those teeth even. It works well until it doesn't for a little over half chain.
I buy the chain vs I'm on someone's time vs filing longer in the rain vs file expense vs chain throws vs more filing vs throws are hard on guides sprocket bar vs time again vs more money

You get the picture. Things change through activities though. As mentioned Square grinding has its great advantages. Then you have to buy one, pack it in and out of work camps and grind after work.






hannes69 said:


> It´s the chain cutter´s geometry. It´s not a single parameter, it´s the combination of them. So your mentioned peak angle not always is to find on the given position, it varies depending on the chain type / manufacturer.


 absolutely it varies, funny how it almost never did that with the type 1 gauge. But It did once I believe? Strange. A flat edge is a flat edge. The jurry is still out on some of that..lol
You did get one queer reading on one graff. It read at .023" but everything consistantly decreased from the top as a would expect. You didn't run any direct comparisons..maybe one? Nothing with the stihl reg 3/8

*Not disputing the improvements


----------



## hannes69 (Apr 28, 2018)

Westboastfaller said:


> I was/am talking about two gauges. One on each end. Two gauges so you don't disturd (too low)what is 'optimal' or the best numbers that work best for the first 'half ' of the chains life. Then a lower one for the second half.


Yeah, it´s possible to make two gauges, one for each chain life´s half. I don´t even own one of the buyable gauges, would be interesting to have the measurements of it, when throwing the numbers into the calculator, we would know, what the buyable ones achieve. So only two numbers needed, thickness of the gauge and the 'pivot length'. So we would see what the manufacturers assume as good cutting angles for soft and hard wood. Not that we simply want to copy that, only out of interest 
So with the buyable gauges maybe it would be possible to use the 'hard' setting for the first half and the 'soft' setting for the second half of the chain´s life when aiming actually for a 'hard' setting. But of course you don´t have a setting for the second half when aiming for a 'soft' setup in the meaning of this approach...



Westboastfaller said:


> What I mean by 'shorten it up'
> The end of the gauge can still sit accross the top of the chain and be lower than what you have but it needs a hole for the raker with at least enough material beyond the bottom end hole. (Could be a drill hole on a flat plate would work good as anything, as well easy. Especially for a prototype.





Westboastfaller said:


> I would try one on the other end of the flat plate that's a little steeper if needed. I bet you could get even more consistent data.


Hmm. That is this kind of explanations when I personally need a drawing, a photo or something comparable. I understand all (at least most) of your single words, but not the combination of them. The teacher would maybe say "Mind your language"  Or maybe here we are sitting on the language barrier, who knows? 



Westboastfaller said:


> I would personally modify the one in the link by grinding it back. That would be good for me as its flat and I could make a two in one if there was an advantage for it?


If I understand you right, yes, you can take a gauge like the one you linked to in post #7 as a base and modify it to your needs. You can lengthen the slot, and so you have a shorter 'pivot length' and so higher values for the cutting angle. Or you lengthen the cutout for the raker towards the middle of your mentioned gauge and so you have a longer 'pivot length' and so lower values for the cutting angle.



Westboastfaller said:


> You didn't run any direct comparisons..maybe one? Nothing with the stihl reg 3/8


I don´t quite understand your wish here. You´d like me to do a direct comparison of something, but what? I should compare what with what?


----------



## HarleyT (Apr 28, 2018)

So the buyable gauges are bad, why? 

They ride on the top/front of the chisel, and set the height of the depth gauge.


----------



## PogoInTheWoods (Apr 28, 2018)

After reading this whole thread I must say it's been very interesting. And since I did read the whole thing I can't help but chiming in with my 2 cents even though I've already forgotten many of the deeper points that will probably blow everything out of the water that I'm about to offer up. LOL

Someone asked for a picture of a Husky progressive gauge, which I gather is equivalent to the type 1 gauge on page one? (I never knew Stihl made such a gauge.) I guess I'm not seeing the difference between one of these and the ones Hannes is making except perhaps their application to the task by way of the reference point on the chain for positioning the tool and most probably the material used for making the tool.







These are what I use for my general purpose needs on various types of wood with various types of chain. My point of reference for placement is always the back of the raker regardless of how the front slot of the gauge straddles the chain. If I could make em, I would..., because they wear out eventually. Seems like all the hair splitting being referenced in this thread omits that fact while contemplating all the other changing values requiring consideration during the life of the chain itself. A good raker file will eventually wear down (or through) any gauge and obviously affect the cutting face to raker relationship (angle) over time. Granted it's a gradual effect, but another variable nonetheless. Regarding cutting angles, (assuming we're talking about cutting face), wouldn't the filing or grinding have a more significant effect on those numbers than what is simply being calculated in theory as an effect of a given depth gauge? I use a smaller file as I get toward the last third of a cutter. Where do I plug in that variable?

I still don't get the part where different tooth lengths are a problem if a progressive raker gauge is dutifully used to maintain a relative relationship between a tooth and a raker (except for bore cuts) and one keeps the gullet clean. Should 'basically' get the same chip from a short tooth as a long one if they're cutting at the same depth..., keeping in mind a saw chain doesn't roll around a bar in a smooth linear fashion, but rather 'rocks' up and down front to back link to link as it cuts through wood. Thus a taller raker on a longer tooth doesn't necessarily inhibit a shorter tooth with a shorter raker from grabbing wood or make the saw cut crooked or in circles as many would suggest. Only difference would be the width of the chip near as I can figure.

All that said, it just seems to me that the rear of the raker should be the reference point for positioning any type of progressive style depth gauge tool in order to maintain a consistently appropriate relationship (angle) to the cutting edge (working corner, actually) of the tooth. That in and of itself would be different between full and semi-chisel chain if you think about it. What that 'appropriate relationship' happens to be over the life of the chain would certainly change and depend on the design/choice of progressive tool as to how drastically or subtly, but surely seems like it would be more consistent than a method using the drive link surface or rivet-to-cutting-face relationship as the constant by which the raker height should be adjusted.

All I know is the various Husky gauges work for me for the various types of chain they can be used on and if I could make something similar cheap I would. In the meantime, they're 3 bux apiece.


----------



## Westboastfaller (Apr 29, 2018)

PogoInTheWoods said:


> After reading this whole thread I must say it's been very interesting. And since I did read the whole thing I can't help but chiming in with my 2 cents even though I've already forgotten many of the deeper points that will probably blow everything out of the water that I'm about to offer up. LOL
> 
> Someone asked for a picture of a Husky progressive gauge, which I gather is equivalent to the type 1 gauge on page one? (I never knew Stihl made such a gauge.) I guess I'm not seeing the difference between one of these and the ones Hannes is making except perhaps their application to the task by way of the reference point on the chain for positioning the tool and most probably the material used for making the tool.
> 
> ...


 ummm...I'll take Harley T's question.. lol
Good pic's. Thank you Yes It was I who couldn't upload one but did use Philbert's link again in my last post. Pic is what I wanted for explanation reasons. I won't veer off the direct discussion too much at this time. That's why I didn't answer the gentleman's 2nd posy about 'aggressive' boring issues on pg. 2. That and I gave him the proper mitigators to use with deeper rakers. He came back and answered his own question anyway, didn't he?

Every thing affects every thing, as we all agree on. As far as the flow of the chain through the wood, there is so much in play here.
First off: Its chain sprocket driven so its centripetal force opposed to a shaft (clutch) which is opposite and goes away from the axis (centrifugal) FWIW to anyone?
Then we have disturbance.

I can give some examples of disturbance. The inward force may help this, but at times will break the flow or the cutters creating a surge or bounce ect. As well is increased hook and lower rakers or cutter types. Square chisel has less disturbance. Then you have the disturbance of the engine at Wide open throttle (WOT)
At times like in punky wood you can see all of these disturbance come into play. It ends up cutting the log faster or around the same speed at 1/3 throttle.
This will happen with 'perfect bar and chains'.
Everything has limitations and it can't 'porpoise' affectively through the wood as it goes in and out of 'attack mode'.
I will give an example of a common situation were the inward force at WOT will bind a chain that is running off to one side. In some of the worst cases. The chain will bind but will only cut to one side when the revs are reduced, in turn reducing the force. If the felling dogs are in the log then it will remain bound up.

As for using the progressive gauge with longer and shorter teeth:
The data on the graf's will show you it can only work in a certain window of wear. Greater disturbance and cutter intervals will affect that window. Example: skip chain and cutter hook, round chisel vs squre ect. I use round chisel skip with a flat angle hook for cedar. I also, as mentioned twice already, don't keep my teeth even for many reason that were also given. It will only work in that window as its about as unforgiving a combination as it gets.
I don't know how many times when it was entering the end of that workable 'window' and I made the start of a problem into a throw-away chain after putting my best work into that chain.(apart from filing the teeth even) Talk about an insult to 'your' ability. I would strongly suggest (to anyone) keeping the teeth even. With no exeptions if one doesn't use a raker gauge.

So there is much to consider.

I think I said I wasn't going to get into all that ^^^ at this time right..lol

* sorry, i just reread your post. I believe you are confusing 'Cutting angle' with cutter angle/ top plate cutter angle. Cutting angle is discribed here as an imaginary line drawn from the "inside of the raker" (highest point) UP to the leading edge of the cutter. I believe in trigonometry, then that would be a triangle. "Rise over run" and angle degree, with the rise being that of your raker hight.


----------



## hannes69 (Apr 29, 2018)

PogoInTheWoods said:


> After reading this whole thread I must say it's been very interesting.






PogoInTheWoods said:


> Someone asked for a picture of a Husky progressive gauge, which I gather is equivalent to the type 1 gauge on page one? (I never knew Stihl made such a gauge.)


It is equivalent to type 1, yes. Stihl made them too, I linked somewhere in this thread to a video showing it in action.



PogoInTheWoods said:


> I guess I'm not seeing the difference between one of these and the ones Hannes is making except perhaps their application to the task by way of the reference point on the chain for positioning the tool and most probably the material used for making the tool.


Yes. It´s all about the pivot point, it determines the cutting angle. I don´t know what material the buyable ones are made of, I guess steel  I mean: I don´t know what sort of steel they make it out of. Stihl e.g. mentioned on their homepage with older ones, that they cannot be used directly in combination with a file but only to look at it, when showing the newer ones they put an accent on that it is usable directly with the file. So they maybe made the old ones out of a 'softer' steel and the newer ones out of 'hardened' steel. There are many qualities of steel out there. I´m talking personally simply only about 'normal' steel and 'stainless' or 'hardened' steel. The hardware stores here offer these two types as stripes or plates. I used both of them for my gauges, but more or less out of the reason that they are offered in different thicknesses. It was welcome for my process that I have at least these two given thicknesses, and by accident one is stainless and the other one normal steel.
It has an influence on the gauge itself of course. On on side the use of it: hardened steel will withstand direct filing much longer. On the other side the production of the gauge: Try e.g. cutting the hardened steel with an angle grinder by using a normal cutting disc and not the one appropriate for hardened steel, and you´ll not be happy  (I tried that once; when using the right disc you see sparks and the metal disappearing, when using the wrong one you see dust and the disc disappearing  )



PogoInTheWoods said:


> My point of reference for placement is always the back of the raker regardless of how the front slot of the gauge straddles the chain.


Yes.



PogoInTheWoods said:


> If I could make em, I would..., because they wear out eventually


I explained how to do that  And be assured, I´m not the perfect craftman having perfect tools and decades of experience in this field.
You can even simply copy your Husky one if you´re happy with them. The difficult part is the squared cutout. When making mygauge type 1, I only made it out of the softer steel and I used a Dremel with normal drillers as cutting tool. For hardened steel this will rather surely not work out...



PogoInTheWoods said:


> A good raker file will eventually wear down (or through) any gauge and obviously affect the cutting face to raker relationship (angle) over time. Granted it's a gradual effect, but another variable nonetheless.


Yes. Using a gauge made of very high grade steel should lower the wearing effect. Of course the gauge will last forever, if you don´t file onto it, but you file free hand and only control with the gauge. I do it like that. For shaping the raker I already have to free file, so... And I´m not feeling that comfortable when holding the gauge in one hand in its position and the file in the other hand, for me it´s better handling to file and the other hand holds the bar against.



PogoInTheWoods said:


> I use a smaller file as I get toward the last third of a cutter. Where do I plug in that variable?


Good point  This variable and some others are neglected within the simple 'constant cutting angle' concept.
The thing with the smaller file is the following in my eyes: Because the cutter height decreases over time, you may come to a limit, where you can´t even use the bigger file due to a to high diameter. So you are maybe 'forced' to use a samller one. The other point is the hook shape of the cutter´s front. With decreasing cutter height, you get a smaller arc (part of a circle built by the file). The smaller the part of a circle is, the more it appears as a straight line. To maintain the hook, you have to use a circle with a smaller radius. Can´t explain it better and maybe it´s not the right theory, don´t know 
Other thing to mention here at this point because it seems very suitable to me: It´s maybe a little bit the matter from what point of view you are looking to this subject. I see it like that: You want to cut wood. This work is done by the chain, by the cutter. In front of the cutter is the raker. The raker allows or prevents the cutter to cut depending on raker depth. When having no raker depth, you can´t cut, it doesn´t matter at this point what´s going on with your cutter, is it sharp or not,... On the other side when having no raker at all maybe nothing happens because your chain stucks. So we need the right setting between these extremes. Now let´s say we have a small raker depth. And a perfect cutter. You get perfect chips, but really small ones. So your cutting speed is very low. Now let´s assume bad cutters (not sharp,...) You produce powder, with a higher raker a small amount of powder, with a lower raker a litlle bit more of powder  
Ideally you have perfect cutters and now the raker depth is more or less adjusted to your saw´s power. With perfect cutters and too high rakers you waste the power. You could use it to make bigger chips and work faster.
Overdoing this leads to the point where the saw bogs down or the chain doesn´t work smooth anymore or undesirable effects like kickback danger rise up. A balancing act.
What I want to say: Having a saw with ultra power, having the perfectly sharpened chain is not of much use when the rakers aren´t set in the right manner... The rakers allow to set the forces free or block them.



PogoInTheWoods said:


> keeping in mind a saw chain doesn't roll around a bar in a smooth linear fashion, but rather 'rocks' up and down front to back link to link as it cuts through wood. Thus a taller raker on a longer tooth doesn't necessarily inhibit a shorter tooth with a shorter raker from grabbing wood or make the saw cut crooked or in circles as many would suggest.


I think: Yes, it rocks up and down. But this maybe can cover only a certain degree of variations in height. If a tooth is very high compared to the surrounded ones, it may lead to a 'lifting' off and make the other cutters not used. Or one tooth very low maybe doesn´t really cut anymore or at least with lower pressure and so a smaller chip.
And the cutter´s length has an influence on the cutting: I had already the same experience like many others with a chain having all left cutters having an other length than the right cutters (due to different filing / grinding). The chain doesn´t cut straight. So at least in this regard constant cutter length would be desirable 
The progressive raker depth gauge maintains the right raker depth according to its cutter,yes, that´s one of the advantages of this type of gauges.



PogoInTheWoods said:


> All that said, it just seems to me that the rear of the raker should be the reference point for positioning any type of progressive style depth gauge tool in order to maintain a consistently appropriate relationship (angle) to the cutting edge (working corner, actually) of the tooth.


Yes.



PogoInTheWoods said:


> All I know is the various Husky gauges work for me for the various types of chain they can be used on and if I could make something similar cheap I would. In the meantime, they're 3 bux apiece.


They´re rather cheap, yes. 
My point is, that you can actually make one yourself, that type 2 may be even better than type 1 and you can adjust it to your needs.
When already using a progressive raker depth gauge, most of the part is already done of course, my approach maybe adds the last 20 % in direction to perfection


----------



## hannes69 (Apr 29, 2018)

Westboastfaller said:


> ummm...I'll take Harley T's question.. lol


Your joke here made my day already


----------



## Westboastfaller (Apr 29, 2018)

hannes69 said:


> Your joke here made my day already


Haha Oh good. That's because he uses EVEN bigger words than you. Did I mention I run a chainsaw for a living that was Scarry... Lol
I'll clean up that post you didn't understand.. Soon here OK.


----------



## Westboastfaller (Apr 29, 2018)

Man you can write..takes me forever.
Haven't read that one yet


----------



## Westboastfaller (Apr 29, 2018)

hannes69 said:


> , would be interesting to have the measurements of it,


 Maybe Pogoin will be good enough to take a couple measurements of his, hard and soft.. ask him
.
.
.
.
.
. sorry man I couldn't resist.

So inside saddle to the top of the square is good?
May as well get a helping hand and see if someone has a .325 in that style and see how close that one is on 3/8 chain?


----------



## PogoInTheWoods (Apr 29, 2018)

In my case, the hard and soft measurements are pretty much the same these days. LOL

As for the depth gauge tool, I'd be happy to take some measurements when I have some time. I have all the variants of the dedicated Husky tool and also one on a roller combo sharpening guide which is simply a short side-by-side version that happens to be for 3/8 chain. They are pitch specific, so a .325 tool won't work for a 3/8 application.

Top of the square (either left or right side depending on cutter direction) is my reference point. The raker will naturally be oriented correctly if the gauge is centered on the chain and straddling it regardless of the distance from the raker slot to the saddle contact point. Many folks get frustrated with these because they think the raker should fit into the small slot at the front of the square. Never could figure out how that would even work or what the slot is for. Hell, maybe I've been usin' em wrong all these years!


----------



## hannes69 (Apr 29, 2018)

Westboastfaller said:


> Maybe Pogoin will be good enough to take a couple measurements of his, hard and soft..


Hmm. At this point Harley T comes to my mind as well who could be suitable for this kind of job 



Westboastfaller said:


> So inside saddle to the top of the square is good?
> May as well get a helping hand and see if someone has a .325 in that style and see how close that one is on 3/8 chain?


Yes. ALL kind of measurements can help us to lift the whole secret about raker filing and gauging 
Seriously: Yes. It would be intersting to find out, what the manufacturers are thinking about suitable cutting angles for hard and soft wood.
Then we can find out if it is a good idea to use the soft setting for the second half of a chain for a hard setup, or using a .325 gauge on a 3/8 chain and so on.
What really would be interesting I think, are the measurements of .325 and .404 chains to see what happens there. I don´t give up hope that somwhere along the way someone will do some measurements for different chains


----------



## hannes69 (Apr 29, 2018)

PogoInTheWoods said:


> As for the depth gauge tool, I'd be happy to take some measurements when I have some time.


Thanks 



PogoInTheWoods said:


> Never could figure out how that would even work or what the slot is for.


I think, at least for certain chain types, it would maybe be possible, that at the total end of life point of the chain the gauge would sit onto the driving link directly in front of the raker, if this slot wouldn´t exist. Only an assumption, maybe it never would be possible, not sure about that.


----------



## PogoInTheWoods (Apr 29, 2018)

I presume the measurements of interest for this exercise will be thickness of material and distance from saddle/straddle contact point (front notch) to rear of the raker slot?


----------



## PogoInTheWoods (Apr 29, 2018)

hannes69 said:


> ... or using a .325 gauge on a 3/8 chain and so on.



Wouldn't that be the other way around? (3/8 gauge for end of life .325 chain)?


----------



## Westboastfaller (Apr 29, 2018)

PogoInTheWoods said:


> In my case, the hard and soft measurements are pretty much the same these days. LOL
> 
> As for the depth gauge tool, I'd be happy to take some measurements when I have some time.


LMAO good one.
Yep, used to be 9 with 1 wrinkle and now its 1 with 9 wrinkle.. Haha
Ok, I better watch it or Hannes will give me the boot out of R&D class.
He already thinks I may have been kicked out of English. Must be the sea of red that lights up on his computer every time he quotes me?

We (anyboby that's interested) are interested in trying to develop a dual gauge that only gauges approx .030 then another for .O25 so the shorter .325 gauge will work better for the last half of the tooth. or grind one until its perfect. Did you look through those charts?

Sounds good about the gauge measurements.
Do you file with it in the centre like that? What part of square peg in a square hole didn't I understand lol
I lock it in to the inside and back of square and put the bottom inside tap on the tie strap and file to the outside with the lean of the raker. I tried in the centre once and it was getting pushed around and have always used the side. I have kicked it off cockeyed to get them lower at times as well butted the outside raker into the female slot at the bottom centre.


----------



## Westboastfaller (Apr 29, 2018)

PogoInTheWoods said:


> Wouldn't that be the other way around? (3/8 gauge for end of life .325 chain)?


 3/8 chain has a longer run from cutter to raker 
Plus with .325 the distance is shorter from lower base to top of raker slot. Shorter at the back means steeper but lower. The further the raker is away from the cutter the more sticking out from the top. .325 will take more material so would be better to use nearing the end.


----------



## HarleyT (Apr 29, 2018)

This whole thread is hard to follow.

I would give a damn, if the whoile topic was really worthwhile.

No one has even attempted to explain why all of this is even worth it.

How is all of this somehow, better than the common depth gauge tools?

Apparently, each brand, model, variation of every chain would require a unique depth gauge tool. The variations over the last decade from Stihl alone is staggering. Which would make the number from all brands countless.

How? Or yet, why??

Simple questions.

Why not just use the available depth gauge tools, and go cut wood?

If one sharpened chains for a living, would you recommend making a tool for each chain that came into the shop?

If so, can you defend that stance?

Can the O.P. post 1 pic of one of his proposed gauges in place on a chain, in reality? Or is this all "theory"?


----------



## HarleyT (Apr 29, 2018)

Respond to "1" of my questions,
please.


----------



## HarleyT (Apr 29, 2018)

I joke around. 
But I do make a point from time to time.

Show one pic of a chain that you have sharpened. Then a pic of one of your gauges on this chain.


----------



## HarleyT (Apr 29, 2018)

Your gauge on a new chain doesn't count.


----------



## edisto (Apr 29, 2018)

I only got halfway through the thread...figured I'd put this up and then finish later.

I enjoyed reading about your report Hannes. I spent a few months in Starnberg as an exchange student a long time ago. Being German is OK, but being a Bayer is higher!

Back when BobL's thread was running, I put this together:




It's clear acrylic glued to black acrylic on an offset to create a "shelf" for the clear acrylic. If you can see through the glare at the bottom. the angle that I want is inscribed on the black acrylic, along with a vertical line for reference.

Lining the point of the tooth up on the vertical line, with the other end sitting on the next tooth, you just look to see if the raker lines up with the angle that you want:




The tool is shading out the tooth in the above pic. I shot the next one at an upward angle, but that perspective makes the raker look way too high:




The upside of this is that it works on all my chains. The downside is that if you don't sharpen your teeth to the same length, the angle won't be quite right. 

I meant the tool to be a rough draft, but I have used it ever since. I'm not really that fussy about raker angles, but it was a fun exercise.


----------



## edisto (Apr 29, 2018)

HarleyT said:


> No one has even attempted to explain why all of this is even worth it.
> 
> How is all of this somehow, better than the common depth gauge tools?



"You're out of your element Donnie!"

If you want to catch up on the principle, you can check out the first few pages of BobL's thread HERE.


----------



## HarleyT (Apr 29, 2018)

Yes, I am a little "Rock'n'Roll"


----------



## HarleyT (Apr 29, 2018)

Here.....


----------



## HarleyT (Apr 29, 2018)

I know full well that there are groups of folks selling roses at the airport,
spreading the good news of perfect "depth gauge" apps. With the promise of better days, in all goodness in our global reality.....


----------



## HarleyT (Apr 29, 2018)

I just have a "fuzzy" feeling that most folks just sharpen their chain, and go cut wood, and let the anal crowd blather on about spending a lot of time how to measure the depth gauges differently.
Winter is over for most of us,

whatever....


----------



## HarleyT (Apr 29, 2018)

The vast majority of folks here cannot get the simple angles of their chisel even close, so getting all anal about the depth gauge tools is kind of silly. The depth is easily measured.

Well up untill now....


----------



## KiwiBro (Apr 29, 2018)

What do your good selves suggest for the raker file oil?


----------



## HarleyT (Apr 29, 2018)

KiwiBro said:


> What do your good selves suggest for the raker file oil?


Can anyone translate?


----------



## edisto (Apr 29, 2018)

HarleyT said:


> I just have a "fuzzy" feeling that most folks just sharpen their chain, and go cut wood, and let the anal crowd blather on about spending a lot of time how to measure the depth gauges differently.
> Winter is over for most of us,
> 
> whatever....



The part that I don't understand is why keep reading the thread and posting about how disinterested you are? No-one is suggesting that you need to care, but why not spend your time on something that you do care about instead of wasting your time, their time, and bandwidth?


----------



## edisto (Apr 29, 2018)

KiwiBro said:


> What do your good selves suggest for the raker file oil?



If it isn't sperm whale oil then the raker will bind in soft wood.


----------



## HarleyT (Apr 29, 2018)

If I showed 2 Stihl RM chains, made 3 years apart, and the same homemade gauge could not be used.....

What good is that?

Is that OK?


----------



## HarleyT (Apr 29, 2018)

I just pop in from time to time, when my username pops up.

If I didn't, you girls wouldn't have much to get into a "hissy" about....

Really, a unique depth tool gauge for each of the thosands of different chain loops?????

Sure....


----------



## PogoInTheWoods (Apr 29, 2018)

This type of gauge can be used on any brand of chain, just not on stupid hump safety chain. And you really only need one for each pitch, not every type of chain made by every manufacturer. Carlton tried that with the File-o-Plate and their own chain and it was a disaster.

And ya need to realize this isn't an apples and oranges discussion. The basic Oregon style raker gauge is a 'static' style gauge and most free hand filers don't use that type of a gauge for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is they don't count each stroke when they file or carry calipers around so each tooth is precisely the same length to get precisely the same raker depth adjustment from such a gauge. The only time I use one is on the camel hump safety chain where a progressive style raker gauge won't work. Those gauges suit some folks..., mostly because they've never used or understood the benefits of a File-o-Plate or Husky style raker tool. There's your basic 'apple' part.

This thread is about progressive style depth gauge tools which function on an entirely different principal to achieve effective (and progressive) depth gauge adjustment based on the changing relationship between the cutter and the raker as the tooth gets shorter and shorter and the raker gets further and further away (relatively speaking). The dynamics the physical changes of the chain present to this particular approach can obviously be calculated
and accounted for in several ways in order to modify the design or desired result of this type of tool based on the conditions or intended application of the process. The OP simply presented a way to do so..., good, bad, or upside down in anyone else's opinion. That's the 'orange' part.

My pic shows how the orange differs from the apple. If I have some time later I'll post a couple more.

Why would someone care about any of this beyond the theoretical? Many would suggest it's a far superior way to manage depth gauges than the Home Depot or TSC approach..., or Joe's Saw and Mower Shop who simply doesn't know there's another way to adjust depth gauges on professional saw chain.

Now if I want to make a few of these things as described in the beginning of the thread, there's a roadmap there to do so. If not, I've learned a bit more about the variables involved with using the progressive gauge approach and how they could possibly be manipulated to change the way my chains perform. How anal I wanna be about any of it is a pretty abstract consideration since I'm already pretty whacky about my filing and grinding and depth gauge maintenance just using the skills I already have and the store-bought Husky gauges. Not sure what's left of my brain cells can handle much more..., like throwing a pear or pineapple into the mix on top of everything else.


----------



## KiwiBro (Apr 29, 2018)

edisto said:


> If it isn't sperm whale oil then the raker will bind in soft wood.


Well that's my problem then. I've been using Stihl ultra file oil. Regular for 3/8 and their picco oil for the low pro raker files.


----------



## HarleyT (Apr 29, 2018)

PogoInTheWoods said:


> This type of gauge can be used on any brand of chain, just not on stupid hump safety chain. And you really only need one for each pitch, not every type of chain made by every manufacturer. Carlton tried that with the File-o-Plate and their own chain and it was a disaster.
> 
> And ya need to realize this isn't an apples and oranges discussion. The basic Oregon style raker gauge is a 'static' style gauge and most free hand filers don't use that type of a gauge for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is they don't count each stroke when they file or carry calipers around so each tooth is precisely the same length to get precisely the same raker depth adjustment from such a gauge. The only time I use one is on the camel hump safety chain where a progressive style raker gauge won't work. Those gauges suit some folks..., mostly because they've never used or understood the benefits of a File-o-Plate or Husky style raker tool. There's your basic 'apple' part.
> 
> ...


What about bananas?


----------



## HarleyT (Apr 29, 2018)

I can go out into my junk chain box, and pick out a dozen chains that would not work with the gauges shown. In just a few minutes.


----------



## HarleyT (Apr 29, 2018)

Just from an old guy that has sharpened a lot of chains....


----------



## HarleyT (Apr 29, 2018)

I "suggest" that the O.P. has a limited experience with the real world, and has worked up this extensive "tutorial", which is impressive.
But is not the definite "law" on chain upkeep, no matter how you girls wish it to be......


----------



## PogoInTheWoods (Apr 29, 2018)

It's amazing how many old guys who've sharpened a million chains have also never touched a raker..., at least not on purpose.

Show us some chains that a progressive raker gauge won't work on.


----------



## HarleyT (Apr 29, 2018)

A progressive raker gauge? Like any one of those shown earlier? Why are they all different?


----------



## PogoInTheWoods (Apr 29, 2018)

Where are your pictures?


----------



## PogoInTheWoods (Apr 29, 2018)

Some numbers for the three main Husky gauges. They can be used on most any non-safety chain worth sharpening. The .325 and 3/8 will also work on most safety chain (except camel hump) including the Oregon Vanguard chain with the bent over raker. The .404 is obviously only for pro chain. The 3/8 lo pro gauge offered by Husky is not a progressive style tool, but is like the Oregon tool with the gap in the middle that sits on each adjacent tooth.

.325 'Soft' Position -- 14.80mm
.325 'Hard' Position -- 19.00mm
Material Thickness -- .84mm

3/8 'Soft' Position -- 19.00mm
3/8 'Hard' Position -- 23.30mm
Material Thickness -- .84mm

.404 'Soft' Position -- 19.00mm
.404 'Hard' Position -- 22.00mm
Material Thickness -- .75mm

​


----------



## HarleyT (Apr 29, 2018)

So these gauges are only for the chains worth sharpening? Eh?


----------



## HarleyT (Apr 29, 2018)

So your gauges are the same as the O.P.s?

I thought his were much/more/betterer!!!


----------



## HarleyT (Apr 29, 2018)

And, no. I will not go out to the shop and take pics of chains....

Sorry.


----------



## PogoInTheWoods (Apr 29, 2018)

Enjoy your bananas.


----------



## HarleyT (Apr 29, 2018)

So the gauges in your pic are from who?


----------



## HarleyT (Apr 29, 2018)

And why are they inferior to the O.P.s?


----------



## HarleyT (Apr 29, 2018)

So do they try to rest on the rivets?


----------



## HarleyT (Apr 29, 2018)

Are they not "progressive"?


----------



## HarleyT (Apr 29, 2018)

His are soft or hard?

Or does he need 2? For each model chain? Of all of the hundreds of chains? 

Well, the ones that matter.....


----------



## PogoInTheWoods (Apr 29, 2018)

Westboastfaller said:


> Do you file with it in the centre like that? What part of square peg in a square hole didn't I understand lol
> I lock it in to the inside and back of square and put the bottom inside tap on the tie strap and file to the outside with the lean of the raker. I tried in the centre once and it was getting pushed around and have always used the side. I have kicked it off cockeyed to get them lower at times as well butted the outside raker into the female slot at the bottom centre.



I use the rear corner for whichever direction cutter/raker and file down and to the left diagonally across the gauge from behind the saw regardless of whether it's a left or right hand cutter/raker. Seems natural for me as someone who's right handed and the direction itself really doesn't matter, does it? LOL

Here's what I mean for the positioning. Notice the gauge is straddling the chain centered and parallel with the bar and the raker automatically ends up aligned in the correct corner for the tooth being referenced. I force whichever slot corner against whichever raker applies and go for it.





​Here's an example of how the Oregon Vanguard chain plays with one of these. Also sort of demonstrates how the width of the slot can easily accommodate the rear hump style drive link safety chain and also maybe why that extra center slot is there, huh? I would certainly consider this feature being critical for any homegrown solution simply for the flexibility factor.



Lastly, here are a couple of early style File-o-Plates and the Husky 3/8 lo pro tools for whatever reference purpose they may serve. Carlton sure tried to pack a whole lot o' function into a little piece o' metal...., with 13 or so different variations for all their different types of chain. Brilliant functional concept simply lacking the required flexibility to actually be practical, e.g. the ones pictured are only designed to fit certain Carlton chain and a good basis for part of Harley's argument.


​I hope this is somehow useful to the cause and doesn't come off as a distraction or clutter. So far the Husky approach is the simplest and most flexible solution out there for easily accessible and economical progressive style depth gauge tools. If there's a way to improve on the design and easily produce a crop along the back fence every now and again when needed, I'm all for it. What I do think is required in the discussion as a whole is some degree of acceptance of the fact that practicality and repeatable results should easily carry as much or more weight than a couple microns here or there in calculating the effective impact of the tool's ultimate function..., which after all is to roughly gauge the filing of metal on a freekin' chainsaw chain, not be a surgical instrument.

Nowthen, for some reason a banana sounds pretty good right about now.
​


----------



## KiwiBro (Apr 29, 2018)

DAF's are easily accessible (online everywhere), work with every chain even HarleyT could dream up (yeah, that's a challenge), are sandle-wearing hippy progressive, cheap as chips ($9 delivered to your door), and useful for other projects also.

Not trying to burst bubbles, piss on cornflakes, blow smoke up skirts, rain on ya parades but c'mon, people, haven't we already established it aint rocket surgery?


----------



## hannes69 (Apr 30, 2018)

PogoInTheWoods said:


> I presume the measurements of interest for this exercise will be thickness of material and distance from saddle/straddle contact point (front notch) to rear of the raker slot?


Yes 



PogoInTheWoods said:


> Wouldn't that be the other way around? (3/8 gauge for end of life .325 chain)?


Your later delivered numbers speak for using a .325 gauge on an old 3/8 chain


----------



## hannes69 (Apr 30, 2018)

edisto said:


> I enjoyed reading about your report Hannes. I spent a few months in Starnberg as an exchange student a long time ago. Being German is OK, but being a Bayer is higher!


 Yeah, I know that saying. There are always some rumors here and there, that some people want to reanimate the Bavarian Kingdom 



edisto said:


> Back when BobL's thread was running, I put this together:


Nice approach! Of course the solutions dealing with measuring the cutting angle DIRECTLY have its charm. It´s always desirable to measure the parameter in view directly and not indirectly.



edisto said:


> The upside of this is that it works on all my chains. The downside is that if you don't sharpen your teeth to the same length, the angle won't be quite right.


I consider your given downside not really one, because sharpening a chain with cutters all sharing the same length is obligatory in my opinion. Furthermore to mention is here maybe that you can´t file directly onto it, if one likes to.


----------



## hannes69 (Apr 30, 2018)

PogoInTheWoods said:


> Here's an example of how the Oregon Vanguard chain plays with one of these. Also sort of demonstrates how the width of the slot can easily accommodate the rear hump style drive link safety chain and also maybe why that extra center slot is there, huh? I would certainly consider this feature being critical for any homegrown solution simply for the flexibility factor.


Nice catch! I´Now we know the secret of the additional slot  And for the homemade solution it is added in 5 seconds 



PogoInTheWoods said:


> If there's a way to improve on the design and easily produce a crop along the back fence every now and again when needed, I'm all for it. What I do think is required in the discussion as a whole is some degree of acceptance of the fact that practicality and repeatable results should easily carry as much or more weight than a couple microns here or there in calculating the effective impact of the tool's ultimate function..., which after all is to roughly gauge the filing of metal on a freekin' chainsaw chain, not be a surgical instrument.


Improvement of the design is my type 2  
You´re right, it´s not the couple of microns that counts.
Every solution puts an accent on a different point and lives with some flaws on another side because of that.
The 'perfect' gauge would have a simple design, low cost, you can file onto it, it measures cutting angle directly, works for all chains, the cutting angle is adjustable  , it is ergonomic so you don´t hurt your fingers on the chain, it refers to one cutter,...
Perfection is dream, but you can aim for it of course. In the end it should have a higher quality standard than any surgical instrument  
--------
BTW you have my admiration for your skill in explaining things like in #143, that´s brilliant. When reading that I wish that I could explain things in such a manner, I often struggle in doing this so well I´d actually liked it to.


----------



## hannes69 (Apr 30, 2018)

offtopic:
Looking up 'turd in the punch bowl' in urban dictionary reveals the following:

"A person who spoils a pleasant social situation.

This metaphor is powered by a particularly vivid contrast: the inviting sensory appeal of a festive beverage juxtaposed with the revolting suggestion of feculent contagion. Therefore, labeling someone a turd in the punch bowl is most appropriate when the individual's deleterious influence goes beyond mere faux pas or nuisance behaviors, and rises to the level of deliberate offense for its own sake. Consider that the literal act of depositing or excreting fecal matter into a communal food-service container would be sabotage. [...] "

When reading that, it is well possible, that spontaneously someone is coming to your mind ...


----------



## hannes69 (Apr 30, 2018)

So now really ontopic mode:


PogoInTheWoods said:


> Some numbers for the three main Husky gauges. [...]
> 
> .325 'Soft' Position -- 14.80mm
> .325 'Hard' Position -- 19.00mm
> ...



Many many thanks for these numbers, they are helpful ! 
So now we at least know, what Husqvarna thinks about cutting angles:
So I´m virtually throwing the gauges onto my virtual Stihl RM 3/8 chain in the following order:
1. 3/8 hard
2. 3/8 soft / .325 hard (they are obviously the same  )
3. .325 hard

Let´s see what happens 








Husqvarna seems a little bit on the conservative side of things 
Some thoughts:
- because I have no measurements of Husqvarna chains, we don´t know how the Husky gauge performs on Husky chains
- when comparing the numbers to a 25 mil constant depth gauge, the Husky gauge always 'wins', so at least it is an evolution compared to the 'normal' depth gauge tool.
- Husky gauge seems a little bit conservative on Stihl
- the 3/8 soft setting seems suitable for using it as hard wood setup on Stihl chain
- the 3/8 hard setting seems suitable for a very very hard wood setup on Stihl 
- the .325 soft setting may be suitable for a soft setup on Stihl, but better only using for the second half of chain´s life, for the first half it would be a little bit too aggressive
- of course it still is a matter of personal taste, your special personal setup and needs, this here only reflects my opinion

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

Husky here seems to use 33 mil (0.84mm) and 30 mil (0.76mm) steel. Are these common dimensions or do they use special dimensions for their needs?
Would still be interesting, what common thicknesses are available (at least when somebody is interested in making my type 2 gauge ).


----------



## Westboastfaller (Apr 30, 2018)

hannes69 said:


> So now really ontopic mode:
> 
> 
> Many many thanks for these numbers, they are helpful !
> ...


 Thanks to the both of you.
For THAT CHAIN the .325 gauge would be decent to customize FOR SOFTwood. For improvements you would just need to grind a little out of the crotch on the
.325 hard setting were it saddle's up.
Bring the front end up from 6.3 to around 7.1°
The whole male/female joint is not mandatory. That's up to the individual
Holding into the raker is the important part. If one was to mod something like that, they may not have a tool to grind a deeper crotch... Just sayin'

So at this point if anyone gave you chain measurements. Then you could run the data then? Right!
Since you don't need the physical raker gauge then you can shorten the virtual gauge's lower measurements to hit optimal.
You need cutter height to base for raker gauge angle and chain pitch size?

Run the Stihl .377" cutter ht if you have time please.

That's a common pro chain also the Oregon is taller, that's the chain I've used the most as its easier to file in a wet climate. I uses those gauges too.
Its the Oregon measurements I would love to see the most.
Those are the only two different measurements I ever usually use.

I think they have to be custom. Your gauge did really good with the reg Stihl .377 (tall cutter) Up to .280", it only dropped .2°.
It wasn't great on everything.. Still better,yes, but not great.
The type 1 gauges may be really designed for the tall pro chains?
We will see.
Thanks


----------



## edisto (Apr 30, 2018)

hannes69 said:


> I consider your given downside not really one, because sharpening a chain with cutters all sharing the same length is obligatory in my opinion.



While I agree in principle, I am not going toss a chain with a tooth or two that are short because I hit a nail or rock, and I definitely am not filing the others to match.

That said, even if the teeth are different lengths, using the preceding tooth to set the guide on should still mean that the actual cutting angle is being set, so variation in tooth length might not matter because it is a direct measurement.



hannes69 said:


> Furthermore to mention is here maybe that you can´t file directly onto it, if one likes to.



I actually prefer that. I never like filing on a gauge because it seems to me that it would make the gauge and the file both unhappy, and happy files always work better.


----------



## Westboastfaller (Apr 30, 2018)

edisto said:


> That said, even if the teeth are different lengths, using the preceding tooth to set the guide on should still mean that the actual cutting angle is being set, so variation in tooth length might not matter because it is a direct measurement.


Yeah, This is the cat's azz.
As long as a guy doesn't have a mixed back of backslops and hooks then its good to go.
....And if he does...my guest is he's got more issue's in other places.

Anyways... we are not talking about "Joe shmoe and the bumper chain" here


----------



## PogoInTheWoods (Apr 30, 2018)

Precisely. But the primary reference point for the gauge will always be the tooth (fulcrum) of the raker being filed (tangent point?) regardless of gauge slot position (pivot) on the chain..., which obviously establishes the 'relatively' pre-determined angle designed into the gauge for every cutter on the chain regardless of its length..., and why these gauges are desirable for pro's and accomplished free hand filers. Also why different length cutters don't cut in circles or sideways when using a progressive depth gauge tool. Are identical length cutters desirable? Sure. Is that practical in the real cutting world? No.

If you file or grind a chain with left hand cutters intentionally made shorter than right hand cutters and set the rakers accordingly with a progressive depth gauge tool, the saw will still cut straight. If you grind every other cutter on the same side shorter than normal length and use a progressive depth gauge tool the saw will still cut straight. The reason is because the relationship between the raker and cutting face on each individual tooth is appropriate for that particular tooth with no discernible effect or concern for the one before it or after it. Slight differences in angles don't really come into play in the real world because they really only apply to an individual cutter's ability to grab its own chip anyway, not whether the one before it or after it does or doesn't. If they're also filed or ground correctly and have the proper 'relative' raker adjustment obtained by using a progressive depth gauge tool, they'll grab their own chips too. Simple as that.

I'm not suggesting that ideal fine tuned performance from a chain with uneven tooth lengths is readily attainable as would be the case with a new chain. But from my general experience in practical applications, the majority of folks wouldn't even be able to detect a difference and would probably still wonder why _their_ saw cuts crooked.


----------



## PogoInTheWoods (Apr 30, 2018)

hannes69 said:


> This metaphor is powered by a particularly vivid contrast: the inviting sensory appeal of a festive beverage juxtaposed with the revolting suggestion of feculent contagion. Therefore, labeling someone a turd in the punch bowl is most appropriate when the individual's deleterious influence goes beyond mere faux pas or nuisance behaviors, and rises to the level of deliberate offense for its own sake. Consider that the literal act of depositing or excreting fecal matter into a communal food-service container would be sabotage. [...] "
> 
> When reading that, it is well possible, that spontaneously someone is coming to your mind ...



Eugene from "Walking Dead" and Sheldon from "Big Bang Theory"? LOL


----------



## lambs (Apr 30, 2018)

"If you file or grind a chain with left hand cutters intentionally made shorter than right hand cutters and set the rakers accordingly with a progressive depth gauge tool, the saw will still cut straight."

One of our local Stihl dealers did this with a brand new chain, taking the cutters on one side down to half their length.


----------



## Westboastfaller (Apr 30, 2018)

lambs said:


> "If you file or grind a chain with left hand cutters intentionally made shorter than right hand cutters and set the rakers accordingly with a progressive depth gauge tool, the saw will still cut straight."
> 
> One of our local Stihl dealers did this with a brand new chain, taking the cutters on one side down to half their length.


 AND? What where all the Particulars?
Does not mean you CAN as a practice because it was done on a new Stihl chain.
Stihl makes chain and obviously they make their cutting angle close on their chain at least the chain I have used. I've said its very forgiving. That's a testament to their product. (the chain) They use a lower cutter than the Oregon. May be the key to this?
Unfortunately as a hand filer in a wet climate, I almost always have used the Oregon chain.
I talked about a window you can play in which depends on a handful of things and as to how long things with work with uneven cutters but it HAS TOO be a spread in the cutting angle numbers.

Other chain's apart from those two?...I have no idea but we will find out more here.

I heard that story before. ^^^ Likely from you.

In the OP, Hannes's tested a Stihl chain with the Stihl 'virtual file gauge'
It started out with .025" and a 6.3° cutting angle. at half a chain it dropped only to 6.0°
That's 630 points = 100%,
1% = 6.3 points or.63°
3 points or .3° = .5% accuracy difference. Approx . This is at a full chain on one side and half on the other.
Look in quote

Look at some of the other numbers in the thread.

Part of the downfall with Hannes's single file is he will upset these close numbers (in some cases) in order to get a LOWER raker depth near the end of the teeth



hannes69 said:


> View attachment 647693
> 
> 
> View attachment 647694
> ...


----------



## lambs (May 1, 2018)

I don't think I wrote anything that implied it was good practice to take all the cutters on one side down to half their original length. 

The owner at one of the Stihl shops I frequent told me they did it to see if a saw would cut straight that way. And after adjusting the depth gauges on that side to compensate, it did. I was interested in that aspect because when we talk about filing chain, it seems we almost always mention uneven cutter length. 

Nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## hannes69 (May 1, 2018)

Westboastfaller said:


> For THAT CHAIN the .325 gauge would be decent to customize FOR SOFTwood. For improvements you would just need to grind a little out of the crotch on the
> .325 hard setting were it saddle's up.
> Bring the front end up from 6.3 to around 7.1°


When using my calculator you´ll see that you just have to grind the slot 50 mil deeper and you´re done 


Westboastfaller said:


> So at this point if anyone gave you chain measurements. Then you could run the data then? Right!
> Since you don't need the physical raker gauge then you can shorten the virtual gauge's lower measurements to hit optimal.
> You need cutter height to base for raker gauge angle and chain pitch size?


I could run the data, right 
For a type 1 gauge 1 need 4 measurements and for a type 2 gauge 6 measurements (see software screenshots in starting post; the measurements are explained in the software´s 'chain' tab, also seen on screenshots).



Westboastfaller said:


> Its the Oregon measurements I would love to see the most.


Yeah  I´m still waiting for .325 and .404 chain measurements and of course measurements of all pitches for different manufacturers 



Westboastfaller said:


> I think they have to be custom. Your gauge did really good with the reg Stihl .377 (tall cutter) Up to .280", it only dropped .2°.





Westboastfaller said:


> Run the Stihl .377" cutter ht if you have time please.


I´m not so sure, is here a sort of misunderstanding? First, do you mean a cutter height of .388, that is used for gauge type 2 (meaning .377 a typo?) and when you speak of a "tall cutter" I have the impression that you maybe think that there are 2 different Stihl chains involved in my software, measurements and setup?
It is always the same Stihl 3/8 RM chain. The 'cutter height' is the naming for a measurement within my software (couldn´t find a better name) that actually means 'distance from highest point of the cutter down to the pivot point of the gauge'. That are simply 2 different measurements depending on the gauge type. Type 1 sits onto the tie strap, type 2 onto a rivet. So the 2 measurements are different, but I call them both 'cutter height'... It is a kind of height of the cutter, it´s only a question what the base reference point of the height is


----------



## hannes69 (May 1, 2018)

edisto said:


> While I agree in principle, I am not going toss a chain with a tooth or two that are short because I hit a nail or rock, and I definitely am not filing the others to match.


I won´t toss such a chain either. A too short cutter is simply ignored by me for the next sharpening(s) until it matches the rest again. And a too long cutter is filed back immediately of course 



edisto said:


> I actually prefer that. I never like filing on a gauge because it seems to me that it would make the gauge and the file both unhappy, and happy files always work better.


Feeling the same way


----------



## hannes69 (May 1, 2018)

PogoInTheWoods said:


> If you file or grind a chain with left hand cutters intentionally made shorter than right hand cutters and set the rakers accordingly with a progressive depth gauge tool, the saw will still cut straight.


Ok. That´s interesting news  
I once had a chain filed in such a way, that there was a length difference between left and right hand cutters. I tested it and it cut in a curve. Then I shortened the too long side, so that all cutters had the same length. The chain has cut straight since then. So I thought, that this was the case because of the same cutter length. Of course the rakers all had more or less the same length, before and after the shortening 
So my experience would fit into your theory. Sometimes some things are different from what you think how things are (what a sentence) 
Every day something new to learn!



PogoInTheWoods said:


> Eugene from "Walking Dead" and Sheldon from "Big Bang Theory"? LOL


Now as you´re saying it: It must have been Sheldon I thought all the time about, only didn´t realize it


----------



## hannes69 (May 1, 2018)

Westboastfaller said:


> n the OP, Hannes's tested a Stihl chain with the Stihl 'virtual file gauge'
> It started out with .025" and a 6.3° cutting angle. at half a chain it dropped only to 6.0°
> That's 630 points = 100%,
> 1% = 6.3 points or.63°
> 3 points or .3° = .5% accuracy difference. Approx . This is at a full chain on one side and half on the other.


Are you trying to calculate a relative error here?
That´s simply (6.0° - 6.3°) / 6.3° ~= -0.05 ~= -5%


----------



## PogoInTheWoods (May 1, 2018)

Westboastfaller said:


> Does not mean you CAN as a practice because it was done on a new Stihl chain.
> ____
> 
> Other chain's apart from those two?...I have no idea but we will find out more here.



If the rakers are adjusted with the same depth gauge for their respective cutters it doesn't matter what brand of chain is involved. The angles will vary a bit by chain brand, style, and obviously the versatility of the depth gauge tool among the different types of chain, but the results will still be consistently relative all the way around the chain and it will still cut straight for the reasons I posted earlier.

The most common reasons for a chain cutting crooked are _unevenly sharpened_ cutters, _uneven_ bar rails, _loose_ chain, or a _combination of all three_. In other words, poor maintenance habits. A well maintained chain with proper raker maintenance and well sharpened teeth (even of varying lengths) will not cut crooked without one (or all) of the former conditions being involved. 

To be clear, I'm not talking about severe irregularity all over the chain just for the sake of being extreme to make a point. I'm talking about the types of irregularities any chain will experience over its life of cutting, combined with being ground and filed however deemed necessary to maintain its lifetime effectiveness. Counting file strokes and measuring cutter length simply don't fall into the practical realm of chain maintenance in the real world of anyone who uses a chainsaw on a regular basis and is often faced with hand filing on a stump or a tailgate. The guys I know file a tooth until it's sharp regardless of what it takes and move on to the next one. Two strokes. Four strokes. 10 strokes. Doesn't matter. They touch up the rakers as necessary and go cut more wood...., straight -- unless intended otherwise.

I guess I just don't understand why so many folks have trouble wrapping their heads around this and insist on keeping the myth alive that all the teeth need to be the same length or their saw will cut in circles. It is simply not the case...., unless such folks have no idea what a raker is and also toss a perfectly good chain after a few sharpenings because it's 'worn out' and 'just won't cut anymore'.

On the subject of the different styles of chain behaving differently with the formula or the various (or same) depth gauge tools, isn't it again just a case of relativity and essentially the length of the 'saddle' slot (or required position of the slot based on the distance between the tooth face and raker) to effectively achieve the desired result? I use the Husky gauges on all the chains I run. Stihl RM and RS, Oregon LG, Husky, etc. There is definitely some variance in aggressiveness among the chain types, but nothing unmanageable or detrimental enough to make me want to stop cutting and grab another chain or saw. Seems to be a fairly forgiving solution for quite a few chain types with the hard and soft ends obviously providing some flexibility.
I'll admit to not having enough experience among all the chain types I use to have learned the subtleties of the Husky tool on each one. And I don't use all the different chains I happen to have by design. I've just acquired a LOT of chains over the years and often times the length of a chain ends up more relevant than the brand out of sheer necessity. (I also have a LOT of saws.)

And to establish my actual perspective on all this, I'm not a professional saw user, but I do have quite a bit of experience running saws. I heat with wood and have for years. Cut a lot of firewood of all types, but very little softwood except some occasional maple. Mostly oak and ash..., and a chain _knows _when it's cutting oak or ash and lets _you_ know it knows by needing a fair share of attention to keep it cutting right. Not much room for examining subtlety or nuance in chain performance cutting Ohio hardwood. Cutting Doug Fir or Cedar all day would certainly make it easier to distinguish the differ_e_nces between chain types and the effects of various depth gauge adjustment tools and methods of using them among different chain types. 

All I can say from my experience is I was just pissing up a rope with my chain maintenance until I learned how to free hand file and discovered the progressive raker gauge..., pretty much around the same time. It changed everything for me and my saws and I haven't looked back. I do also have an Oregon grinder which I love, but never really knew how to use until learning how to free hand file (if that makes any sense). Learned how to appreciate what the grinder could actually do for my chains instead if viewing it as the 'lazy way'.

Anyway, too long winded in this post and I apologize for wandering. 

Different length cutters don't make a chain cut crooked if the rakers are right.

The end. 

LOL


----------



## hannes69 (May 2, 2018)

^^ I see, I´m not the only one being capable of writing long essays 
But many thanks for clearing things up regarding this. It fits well into this thread and is quite informative. And speaks for the progressive approach once again 



PogoInTheWoods said:


> On the subject of the different styles of chain behaving differently with the formula or the various (or same) depth gauge tools, isn't it again just a case of relativity and essentially the length of the 'saddle' slot (or required position of the slot based on the distance between the tooth face and raker) to effectively achieve the desired result?


 I assume this being a rhetorical question, but to emphasize it even more, the answer is YES 



PogoInTheWoods said:


> I use the Husky gauges on all the chains I run. Stihl RM and RS, Oregon LG, Husky, etc. There is definitely some variance in aggressiveness among the chain types, but nothing unmanageable or detrimental enough to make me want to stop cutting and grab another chain or saw. Seems to be a fairly forgiving solution for quite a few chain types with the hard and soft ends obviously providing some flexibility.


I think the buyable depth gauges are sold as 'universal' or do they claim it is only suitable for the same brand of chains? 
If the chains from different manufacturers behave similarly after sharpening and using the same depth gauge tool, this speaks for similar chain measurements in my thinking. Would be plausible as well, one is learning from the other (or copying / imitating  ), maybe a saw chain has found its optimum, not much room to improve. And there is physical reality. The chain measurements aren´t by accident, but by purpose due to physical reality. And you can assume, that the chain designing engineers will come to similar numbers and solutions.
I personally like to prove some things or let´s say looking for evidences. 
BobL talked in his thread about the 'cutting angle' and that its value decreases to some degree (  ) parallely to cutter wearing when using a FOP. His explanations sounded plausible to me, but as I said, I like to prove 
So after proving it, we have 'evidence', we know if the theory is right, and we have numbers, so we know how large the assumed effect is. 
So I found out for me: The assumed effect shows up in reality. Its degree is less than I maybe feared. I found a solution to loosen this effect.
I try to puzzle some things together. So having measurements of different chains (pitch, brand, cutter profile) would be really nice in this regard. 
Because: 'Numbers don´t lie', we say at least in Germany 
I´m personally a beginner in the chainsaw matter, when I say something in this regard, immediately there will probably show up the argument, that I simply can´t say this or that out of the lack of experience. The numbers can help there, reflecting something objectively rather than my personal subjective impression...
Or as you could say, 'with numbers it gets a stand and a weight'.
Of course you can´t explain whole of the world with numbers, if this shows up once again, but dealing with physical / technical matter, they seem very appropriate to me.


----------



## lambs (May 2, 2018)

hannes69 said:


> ^^ I see, I´m not the only one being capable of writing long essays
> But many thanks for clearing things up regarding this. It fits well into this thread and is quite informative. And speaks for the progressive approach once again
> 
> I assume this being a rhetorical question, but to emphasize it even more, the answer is YES
> ...



Hannes,
I like that you've put numbers to it and quantified it. I don't follow it all that well but totally accept your math. 

I don't think I've ever seen a depth gauge explicitly labeled as "universal", but I think mostly they are not labeled as universal even if they are. The FoP is the only one I can recall seeing that seemed to be limited to Carlton chain. Husky roller guide seems to work better with Husky chain than with Stihl. I'm sure others will speak up if I am mistaken. 

In my somewhat limited experience, the various depth gauges that are used by placing them across several cutters are universal, but of course they are not progressive. 

I am thinking about trying a Stihl or Pferd 2 in 1 type file during the next season. I like that it removes some material from the depth gauges at the same time as sharpening the cutters, and although it is not progressive, it at least does some adjustment. I think it would be great for field use but might be difficult to use while wrestling the saw down on the back of a tailgate. For damaged cutters, I'll keep using the grinder and set the gauges by hand.


----------



## Del_ (May 2, 2018)

lambs said:


> I am thinking about trying a Stihl or Pferd 2 in 1 type file during the next season. I like that it removes some material from the depth gauges at the same time as sharpening the cutters, and although it is not progressive, it at least does some adjustment. I think it would be great for field use but might be difficult to use while wrestling the saw down on the back of a tailgate. For damaged cutters, I'll keep using the grinder and set the gauges by hand.



I have three sizes of the Pferd.

In my opinion on Stihl 3/8RS it makes the chain a bit to aggressive.

And they do not hold square files.


----------



## Westboastfaller (May 2, 2018)

lambs said:


> I don't think I wrote anything that implied it was good practice to take all the cutters on one side down to half their original length.
> 
> The owner at one of the Stihl shops I frequent told me they did it to see if a saw would cut straight that way. And after adjusting the depth gauges on that side to compensate, it did. I was interested in that aspect because when we talk about filing chain, it seems we almost always mention uneven cutter length.
> 
> Nothing more, nothing less.


 You are being very literal here.
When I said "as a practice", I certainly wasn't referring to filing off half the teeth on one side as a practice. ...er..um ..saying you are saying it a 'good' practise.
You said "you can" and I'm dissecting the word "can"
Obviously it can be done under the right circumstances. Odd as it sounds, according to the number spread, filing off half a new type Stihl chain fell under the "right circumstance. Next time you will have more story to tell and not a misleading one.
I'm saying not every situation with allow the saw to work with uneven cutters *through the FULL LIFE of the chain*.

Pogo
@PogoIn TheWoods
(Reference) BobL's link in the OP here) He demonstrated this, then came to a decision that he would set his rakers with his calipers for more accuracy.

Its getting obvious that not everyone will experience these situations.
Much like you said.
I left west coast production falling last year.
Dangerous yes, but you are paid for the knowledge & skills. You can not be there if you don't have the knowledge and the skills to keep the bar straight through the cut. (Amongst many other things).

What seems to be a little over half the chains life, I DO run them as they are sharpened. No effort in maintaining even cutters. This is without any issue with likely the worst conditions: example: 36" bar with all the teeth in the cut .030", round chisel, aggressive hook filed under the leading edge & not up into the corner 10°. , Oregon LG 75
Oregon LG 73 & 75 makes up for most of 29 yrs of different industries & activities.
*Note: The few times I've had to put back on a Stihl chain that was replaced, I was able to run it down without the same binding in the bigger cuts created by a chain pulling to the side as the felling dogs will hold it straight.?? Other scenario would be when its slight and it won't bind in a full cut but because portions of a big bucking cut will be done with the tip only then the early signs will be that of a cut not lining up. Perhaps its out an inch on a 5-6 ft buck.
Perhaps there was heavy rain for a few days and I neglected my gullet depths and rakers need work. I will fix everything that needs it except the teeth length and gas up and think I'm going to be in business. The first tree I try to cut ends up the last. Its not even close to working. It goes in the garbage. I could put it on someone's square grinder and even the teeth but the drivers have some wear by that time and it's going to start throwing chain. Either one or the other will happen about the same time.


I'm sure we have a long ways to go.

Wait for some more numbers.


----------



## Westboastfaller (May 2, 2018)

Screw the math!
Experience stands, 
can't concentrate now.


----------



## Westboastfaller (May 2, 2018)

The Stihl chain tested here was 6.0° cutting angle.
at .160" cutter wear (half a chain)
This new chain had 6.3° cutting angle
A different of 3 points of a degree.

63 points in 6.3°
63 points = 100%
6.3 points = 10%
3 points = 5% +/- error approx

Some of the higher point spread in the beginning of the thread were 1.2° & 1.5°
This is 20% & 25% +/- error..lol
That's over an angled raker stroke and under a free hand solid flat one. Not by too much though.


----------



## Westboastfaller (May 2, 2018)

ATTACH=full]648896[/ATTACH]
View attachment 648897

View attachment 648894

View attachment 648895


----------



## Westboastfaller (May 2, 2018)

Hannse's look good. The factory gauge on the low pro is out about 1.9 ° in .240" (under 1/4") 30% maybe?


----------



## PogoInTheWoods (May 2, 2018)

Westboastfaller said:


> Screw the math!



Hear! Hear! (if only temporarily) LOL

The math is all cool when considered in the proper perspective. A given depth gauge tool will perform a certain way with a given chain type. The physics can be measured and absolutely established given any number of variables plugged into a formula. What is not possible to calculate are the actual differences in cutting results relative to the same variables being considered to determine cutting angles over the life of a saw chain. And if may so boldy suggest, the cutting performance of a chain has more to do with how sharp it is over anything else except the raker height. The cutting characteristics will change due to the sharpness (and varying shape) of the teeth way before the cutting angle comes close to playing any role at all..., conceivably even in a single cut depending on wood and conditions.

A dull chain with a perfect cutting angle and every cutter exactly the same length isn't going to cut crap. A sharp chain with imprecise cutter lengths and even modestly maintained rakers will outcut it every day all day long. No math necessary. Just common sense. The math needs to be kept in check when practical reality presents so many more non-calculable variables affecting how a chainsaw cuts..., most of which have significantly greater impact than the hairs being split here in 'the math', particularly as pertains to our friendly argument about the actual practicality _of _ the math. For me the math simply explains more interesting aspects of the progressive approach and combines the novelty of a cool software calculator thrown in for additional convenience and flexibility when comparing the effects of different variables...., as intellectual exercises on paper.. , not to conclusively determine anything _quantifiable_ regarding how any of it realistically plays into how a chain cuts. More aggressive, less aggressive, the same..., all reasonable subjective conclusions, but compared to what? A piece of paper? 

That said...

What additional numbers are needed to move this into the next stage of calculations? Those from varying chain types like above, I presume? Forgive me if I've simply skimmed past that earlier and should already know the answer. (I was probably busy typing this and missed it!)

Also, what other progressive style depth gauge tools are out there and readily available aside from the Husky version? I'm currently not aware of any others aside from the Husky and Hannes's. FOP's are scarce as hen's teeth for general use (the regular 3/8's model anyway) and ridiculously expensive if you can find them on the bay. The reason I tuned into this thread was for the 'grow your own' part. Would be cool if we could get a few prototypes from Hansse's idea into the conversation from different guys for some real world results. Different material types and ideas. Tips and tricks for making them quickly and easily. Maybe a vid or two mixed in to get the whole conversation out of the laboratory and onto some work benches and into some wood. 

But the _coolest _ part of this thread so far? No one gets up your butt about long winded posts with tl:dr responses. (At least not yet.) LOL


----------



## Del_ (May 2, 2018)

tl:dr






Read every word.


----------



## hannes69 (May 2, 2018)

lambs said:


> I like that you've put numbers to it and quantified it. I don't follow it all that well but totally accept your math.


Thanks!


----------



## Westboastfaller (May 2, 2018)

PogoInTheWoods said:


> The math is all cool when considered in the proper perspective. A given depth gauge tool will perform a certain way with a given chain type.


I suggested that, back a page or two
that some of these gauges are best suited for tall cutter chain.
That's a low pro but the point is you can use the gauge on it fine. Its just got a small window that you can cut in before it won't work. Opposed to Oregon Lg chain that has a larger window before a very f*en sharp chain can no work
You need to keep the cutters straight from the start on that one example.. Unless one is going to use a different method then its even teeth and free hand at the back.


PogoInTheWoods said:


> Hear! Hear! (if only temporarily) LOL
> 
> ...., as intellectual exercises on paper.. , not to conclusively determine anything _quantifiable_ regarding how any of it realistically plays into how a chain cuts. More aggressive, less aggressive, the same..., all reasonable subjective conclusions, but compared to what? A piece of paper?


Um ...no 29 pro yrs.
The math IS backing up what I assumed. That they absolutely DO NOT balance the depths with uneven cutter. I wouldn't assume anything had I been able to run them with out issue.

I don't know why you want to throw sharp chain in the mix.
and a bunch of other stuff. Quit deflecting.
Some of the numbers are from the full size chain and we are talking 20% diferences and you are playing it down.


Part 2)
Yes we worked out a good combo for softwood using the measurements you suplyed off the .325 gauge. It worked out when taking an additional .050" out of the saddle for about a perfect even flow with tight numbers.
Best is to start with most popular chain. I'm most interested in seeing the 3/8, 7/32. Guys are just going to have to target what they use. He can suite it very close now we know the basic thickness I think.
I see it as a custom thing.
Certainly not one gauge for all. I know you would agreed with that.


----------



## hannes69 (May 2, 2018)

PogoInTheWoods said:


> The cutting characteristics will change due to the sharpness (and varying shape) of the teeth way before the cutting angle comes close to playing any role at all.


I consider sharp teeth / correctly sharpened teeth as prerequisite for cutting wood, as well as the 'right' raker depth / cutting angle. The cutting angle has definitely a wide working range, but it has its limit. Too high and the chain may be very uncomfortable/rough at least with very hard wood, way too low you loose a large amount of cutting speed. But let´s say simple: when not making a philosophy out of it (like I do for example), with a well sharpened chain you can cut any sort of wood when having a cutting angle in the range of 2° - 8°, some times better some times worse 



PogoInTheWoods said:


> For me the math simply explains more interesting aspects of the progressive approach and combines the novelty of a cool software calculator thrown in for additional convenience and flexibility when comparing the effects of different variables


That reflects some of my thoughts when doing the starting post. Combining some well known aspects to something new and make something out of it. And see it always as a work in progress, something to detect and something to develop. And of course the discussions concerning all of this and even more.



PogoInTheWoods said:


> What additional numbers are needed to move this into the next stage of calculations? Those from varying chain types like above, I presume?


Yes. The two chains I have measured are reflecting common types (3/8 normal and 3/8 low profile) but that covers not the whole range of applications. And I consider it as 'dangerous' to make general conclusions out of a very small sample.
So some thoughts:
- at least measurements of .325 and .404 pitch chains should be made to make some general conclusions
- it would be fantastic if someone has personal 'professional' measuring equipment or access to that during the job to make some better measurements that I have done.
My measurements where made with a digital caliper, use of common sense, use of much time, repeated measurements making mean values, use helping tools like straight edges, 90° bent metal,... I did these measurements as perfect as I could, but you can´t compare that with e.g. using real 3D laser measuring tools. Maybe we don´t need this kind of accuracy... You´ll see, when changing some values here and there in my calculator, that there is no earthquake effect on the result. So maybe it is sufficient to make some good caliper measurments and that´s it.
Maybe when I find the time, I will experiment with making good photos (2D projections) and then do the measurements digitally on the computer monitor, I haven´t tried this technique yet, but theoretically it should work.
- now we have numbers for the Husky gauges (many thanks once again , it would be interesting to have the numbers for the Stihl progressive gauges (they are essentially the same like the Husky ones and my type 1)
- chain measurements of different manufacturers / brands. I assume that they maybe are very similar, so the depth gauge tool would be universal, but I don´t know. So some Stihl, Husky, Carlton, Oregon chains (I think that are the common manufacturers, have I forgotten some?)



PogoInTheWoods said:


> Also, what other progressive style depth gauge tools are out there and readily available aside from the Husky version? I'm currently not aware of any others aside from the Husky and Hannes's.


The mentioned Stihl ones. They are called FL1 - FL5. I linked to a product video within this thread.



PogoInTheWoods said:


> The reason I tuned into this thread was for the 'grow your own' part.


Yeeeeeeaaaaah!  I took BobL´s thread as prerequisite, I didn´t think about it, that there would be long basic discussions dealing with constant depth gauge vs. progressive depth gauge and so on. My concept was mainly adressed to people knowing BobL´s thread (or sharing its knowledge) and follow this way consequently. So find out the numbers. Find a way to make this gauge DIY. Find a way to customize it to personal needs. Make some pre-work, but then make it a multi-people-project. So some discussions, make changes on the software, make some gauges, make some measurments, try it out in the forest,...



PogoInTheWoods said:


> Would be cool if we could get a few prototypes from Hansse's idea into the conversation from different guys for some real world results. Different material types and ideas. Tips and tricks for making them quickly and easily. Maybe a vid or two mixed in to get the whole conversation out of the laboratory and onto some work benches and into some wood.


Yes, yes, yes and... yes 
I like the academic world and the lab, I like theoretical discussions, but in the end, the most important part is going out into the world and simply MAKE it and not talk about it. That is my approach with my gauge type 2. I thought "this is so easy to make, there will at least some guys make this soon and simply try it". It is really not rocket science, it is making a rectangular slot in a stripe of metal sheet...
All the theory has no self purpose, it should end in practical application.
And it was meant from the very beginning by me not as a one man show thing. I can do math and programming, I own a chainsaw, I can use it for my needs. But I have not much of practical experience in this matter. And I don´t own many different chains. And my personal time is not endless.
By cooperation this little plant can grow bigger 



PogoInTheWoods said:


> But the _coolest _ part of this thread so far? No one gets up your butt about long winded posts with tl:dr responses. (At least not yet.) LOL


I love long winded posts  Here one more 
I use them by purpose as a natural filter: People not interested leave the thread, people very interested should love these kind of posts


----------



## hannes69 (May 2, 2018)

Del_ said:


> tl:dr
> Read every word.



Thanks for helping the German guy sometimes with this nasty internet slang


----------



## Del_ (May 2, 2018)

hannes69 said:


> Thanks for helping the German guy sometimes with this nasty internet slang



You're welcome. 

I'm sure you know by now it means: To long, didn't read.

It is great to see the theoretical and the practical discussing depth guides, sharpness, etc.

In case you didn't know some of the guys in this thread are known to have very, very fast cutting chains. I'm not sure which guys are the fastest, but I've seen some impressive videos of the get togethers/races they attend. 

All of the fastest are square ground. I play with square some too.


----------



## lambs (May 2, 2018)

Westboastfaller said:


> AND? What where all the Particulars?
> Does not mean you CAN as a practice because it was done on a new Stihl chain.





Westboastfaller said:


> You are being very literal here.
> When I said "as a practice", I certainly wasn't referring to filing off half the teeth on one side as a practice. ...er..um ..saying you are saying it a 'good' practise.
> You said "you can" and I'm dissecting the word "can"
> Obviously it can be done under the right circumstances. Odd as it sounds, according to the number spread, filing off half a new type Stihl chain fell under the "right circumstance. Next time you will have more story to tell and not a misleading one.
> I'm saying not every situation with allow the saw to work with uneven cutters *through the FULL LIFE of the chain*.




The above (see my red highlight) was not my quote.


----------



## PogoInTheWoods (May 2, 2018)

Westboastfaller said:


> Um ...no 29 pro yrs.



Still a subjective opinion that isn't quantifiable. And I'm not suggesting it is wrong, inaccurate, or anything else. Just not _measurable.
_


Westboastfaller said:


> The math IS backing up what I assumed. That they absolutely DO NOT balance the depths with uneven cutter.



I don't believe that was ever suggested, just that if the raker was appropriately adjusted relative to the length of the tooth, a suitable enough cutting angle would still exist for each tooth to grab a chip and the chain would still cut straight. Smaller cutting angle, a slightly smaller chip.., until of course, the point of diminishing returns is reached due to extreme differences in the length of the cutters..., at which point, why bother? Grind off the used up tooth and proceed with the rest of the good ones or toss the chain.



Westboastfaller said:


> I don't know why you want to through sharp chain in the mix.



Yeah, I know. Silly me. LOL



Westboastfaller said:


> Quit deflecting.
> Some of the numbers are from the full size chain and we are talking 20% diferences and you are playing it down.



I don't consider providing additional considerations to the overall scope of the discussion as deflecting anything, just illuminating more practical aspects to evaluate in determining how much effect all the cutting angle theory actually has on the end result of a chain's performance.., especially considering how many other factors are also involved, not the least of which is the overall sharpness of the chain . Not even a devil's advocate position there. Just a pragmatic one.

Not sure what I am playing down. I'm just not as thoroughly wrapped up in the numbers as you appear to be. If 20% differences are intolerable for a given chain, so be it. If it still cuts, I'd keep the tooth sharp and keep cutting with it. But that's just me. If all your cutters need to be the same length, then grind it off or toss the chain as previously suggested. The latter would be ridiculous, of course..., at least in my world.

All I know for sure is in the time we've spent sparring back and forth we both could have sharpened a LOT of chain and touched up a LOT of rakers and I'll bet both our saws would cut great in spite of each other's positions, which aren't all that different anyway except maybe for the semantics. I enjoy the dialogue and am learning from it.



Westboastfaller said:


> Best is to start with most popular chain. I'm most interested in seeing the 3/8, 7/32.



Now there ya go throwin' a file into the mix! LOL

Pretty sure I have some new LG for measurements along with some 3/8 Husky. (May be the same chain, actually.) I also have some .404 on a partial reel but I'm not sure what it is. A digital caliper will be used here as well for any measurements so we'll be talking only so much actual precision. Should hopefully be at least close enough to establish somewhat of a baseline for each type that I can come up with in comparison to the Stihl.


----------



## hannes69 (May 3, 2018)

Del_ said:


> In case you didn't know some of the guys in this thread are known to have very, very fast cutting chains. I'm not sure which guys are the fastest, but I've seen some impressive videos of the get togethers/races they attend.
> 
> All of the fastest are square ground. I play with square some too.


Ok  For them this topic should be of some interest... 
Here in Germany the square filing has no culture. Only full chisel and semi chisel chains are used, both of them are round filed. 
I never tried it, but there are many things left for me in this life


----------



## hannes69 (May 3, 2018)

PogoInTheWoods said:


> Pretty sure I have some new LG for measurements along with some 3/8 Husky. (May be the same chain, actually.) I also have some .404 on a partial reel but I'm not sure what it is. A digital caliper will be used here as well for any measurements so we'll be talking only so much actual precision. Should hopefully be at least close enough to establish somewhat of a baseline for each type that I can come up with in comparison to the Stihl.



These measurements are very important and of great interest for me (and hopefully for some others!) I used a digital caliper as well, I took the time, I trust the numbers. 
For integration into the calculator I would need all the measurements shown in the 'chain' tab. And additionally the cutter length of the new chain is useful to limit the results in the calculator. I assume a rest cutter length of 80 mil as a minimum and don´t show results below this value to get meaningful numbers. 
So to stay compatible with the software I would need totally 8 measurements of one chain when maintaining the two gauge types.
Many thanks in advance for your help!


----------



## hannes69 (May 3, 2018)

Here some numbers showing why gauge type 2 is mathematically (  ) a good amount better than type 1 (using the Stihl 3/8 RM chain):
Let´s assume a default hard wood setting (a hard wood setting can be used with soft wood without a problem, vice versa maybe not). The new chain is prepared for hard wood, it has a raker depth of 25 mil and a cutting angle of 6.3°. To maintain the hard wood setting, the gauge tool should limit the cutting angle to 0.3° extra but nothing more, so a maximum of 6.6° (set by me in this example like that).
Type 1 gauge is designed with the software´s defaults (47 mil thickness, 566 mil pvot length).
Type 2 gauge is designed with 49 mil thickness to achieve the 6.6° maximum criteria.

So these two designs are comparable now.
Type 1 has a mean value for the cutting angle of 5.8° during the chain´s life, type 2 6.2°. So type 2 maintains the initial cutting angle as mean value to 98.5%, type 1 only to 92%.
Compared to its mean value, type 1 has a variation of +13 % and - 24%, type 2 a variation of + 6 % / -12%. That means half of the relative error! So type 2 has more 'stable' values.
When looking at the relation between aimed value and lowest value, type 1 achieves a minimum of -30%, type 2 only -12%.
Of course both types will work well in reality, but type 2 has a remarkable lead compared to type 1 I think.
Leaving alone the 'small' problem of realizing a 49 mil material thickness (at least for me) 
The working principle of type 2 seems better (at least in this case) 
Here the numbers for this default hard wood setting type 2:



BTW, if someone wonders about the odd value of 5.9° in between 6.3° and 6.2° for a cutter wearing of 20 mil (comparable 'glitch' in other examples):
This is due to the initial raker depth of 25 mil for a new chain. For 0 mil wearing = new chain this leads to a cutting angle of 6.3°. Because the chain already has this depth. If the chain would have a higher raker, the gauge tool in this example would lead to a raker depth of 21.7 mil and a cutting angle of 5.5° fo the 0 mil wearing point, if we would have to file the raker down from a higher point to our initial value.
The default value of 25 mil helps us at this point 

When looking at the numbers of this default hard wood setup type 2 gauge, I consider it and name it "constant cutting angle raker depth gauge", it meets my definition of 'constant' .


----------



## Westboastfaller (May 3, 2018)

lambs said:


> "If you file or grind a chain with left hand cutters intentionally made shorter than right hand cutters and set the rakers accordingly with a progressive depth gauge tool, the saw will still cut straight."


I couldn't see the quotation marks in your originally post. (Small device, no glasses on)

I didn't notice until now that the top half above^^^ ..from your first post was a quote from 'Pogo' that you 'paste coped' over opposed to using the quote button.



Westboastfaller said:


> I certainly wasn't referring to filing off half the teeth on one side as a practice. ...er..um ..saying you are saying it a 'good' practise.





lambs said:


> The above (see my red highlight) was not my quote.


{More on the statement above (top of post) that was just established as not being yours}
I used the word 'CAN' as a loose quote to descride the statement above which equates to just that.

I have no problem apologizing to you or anyone that takes issue with a "loose quote" or an insensitive joke ect but I do expect you/them to hold yourself (in this case) in the same regards as you 'ask of others'.

See below post in in red....'good practice' was not my quote.
I said 'practice', I then later said you were being literal but obviously you deliberately took it out of context.
Enough of the petty crap and quote me if you got something to talk about.


----------



## Westboastfaller (May 3, 2018)

Westboastfaller said:


> Does not mean you CAN as a practice because it was done on a new Stihl chain.


*Note: "practise" to mean working with uneven cutters at all different time life's with an assortment of chain.


lambs said:


> I don't think I wrote anything that implied it was good practice to take all the cutters on one side down to half their original length.


----------



## lambs (May 3, 2018)

Hey friend,
I just noted for the record that the text being referenced as mine was not. That's all.


----------



## Westboastfaller (May 4, 2018)

I think the relevant figures are your +/- spread, in conjunction with where they fall in relation to each other through the life of the chain.

You can have a more desired scenario with a lower percent average to your desired target.You could have a 'plummet and spike'with an equal +/- either way, can you not? ..resulting in 100% average of your target value, 6.3° (average of 6.3 over the life of the chain)
....But could end up with a greater +/-spread.

You had a +/- error variants of +6% / -12% with your type 2 gauge.
With a cool 6.2 average at 98% of the original 6.3° The later two not being relevant at all and possibly misleading.
Its only the top & the bottom (spread) *AND...where they happen in relation to each other over the life of the chain that matters here.
Just sayin'

K.I.S.S. lol

EDIT


----------



## hannes69 (May 4, 2018)

Westboastfaller said:


> I think the relevant figures are your +/- spread, in conjunction with where they fall in relation to each other through the life of the chain.
> 
> You can have a more desired scenario with a lower percent average to your desired target.You could have a 'plummet and spike'with an equal +/- either way, can you not? ..resulting in 100% average of your target value, 6.3° (average of 6.3 over the life of the chain)
> ....But could end up with a greater +/-spread.


I always look at both numbers, the average and the spreading. You always shoot for average = aimed and spreading as low as possible. There are extremes possible when dealing with such mathematical models: you maybe achieve average = aimed value, but the spreading is untolerable large. Or you have a small spreading but out of some reasons you can´t achieve your aimed value as average in parallel. 
And it´s always the question what exactly you are looking at and under which conditions / restrictions. 
In the example above I made the restriction 'maximum cutting angle overshoot of 0.3°'. When you change this restriction to 0.1° or 3.0° some numbers quickly change 

But that´s not that important in detail. I only wanted to give a short example to show in numbers WHY I think that gauge type 2 is better than type 1  Beside the fact that it is easier to produce (when having the right metal thickness).


----------



## Westboastfaller (May 4, 2018)

hannes69 said:


> I only wanted to give a short example to show in numbers WHY I think that gauge type 2 is better than type 1  Beside the fact that it is easier to produce (when having the right metal thickness).


Right, your gauge is certainly better and you met your primary objective before you stared this thread. This being a gauge that will maintain a much higher cutting angle nearing the last third of the chain without drastically disrupting the front portion and possibly making the chain undesirable. You have certainly proven this to be factual. This mentioned above being your original agenda with the expectation that people keep the cutting teeth even.

Many have expressed that its just not practical. Generally the only hand filers that keep the teeth even are experienced ones that don't use a raker gauge. That's how they were taught and that's what they teach. As long as they hold a consistent angle then that works well. An 'old school' approach.

Now we are looking at a secondary objective of improving the numbers
and tightening the +/- variance to ensure no cutting issues will occur.
Looks like a custom dual gauge per hard/soft option may be the answer in cases to achieve a lower +/- variance of that than a one option gauge can possibily accomplish.

*Cutting issues,
Early symptoms of this will include:

-Very mild surging (mindful of rev change & 'the feel' of how its cutting.
-Bigger cuts not linning up perfectly

Move advanced:
-Stronger surging
-Binding in the bigger cuts with the use of felling/bucking dogs.

-Cutting to one side without felling dogs.

*NOTE: Extremely advanced issue.

-frustration is now leading to anger

-Operator grabs pull cord, spins around three times like an Olympic discus champion and launches the saw off the hillside...


----------



## hannes69 (May 4, 2018)

Westboastfaller said:


> Right, your gauge is certainly better and you met your primary objective before you stared this thread. This being a gauge that will maintain a much higher cutting angle nearing the last third of the chain without drastically disrupting the front portion, with s result of making the chain undesirable. You have certainly proven this to be factual.


Thanks for the compliment 



Westboastfaller said:


> Generally the only hand filers that keep the teeth even are experienced ones that don't use a raker gauge. That's how they were taught and that's what they teach. As long as they hold a consistent angle then that works well. An 'old school' approach.


Yes, if you were taught the 'total manual' method, this certainly will work out very well, if practised enough. 
I´m more the type of 'new school'  I haven´t learned hand filing a chain, and maybe I won´t ever learn it. I go to the forest with two chains sharpened by me with an electrical grinder and rakers filed down with my depth gauge tool. Chain one has its work done until lunch break, chain two does its job till the end of the working day  When cutting into a stone, one chain has to do the work for the rest of the day, when cutting into another stone - home sweet home  So no need for hand filing for me, and if there´s no need then maybe there´s not a huge interest in learning it... And I like a sort of perfection very much. The grinder can surely hold a certain sharpening angle better than me. I also like some purist approaches in other fields, but in the matter of saw chains I prefer the little helpers.



Westboastfaller said:


> Looks like a custom dual gauge per hard/soft option may be the answer in cases to achieve a lower +/- variance of that than a one option gauge can possibily accomplish.


Of course different gauges will still be needed for different wood types, these progressive gauges are not adjustable. 
Within one setup it´s surely a question of personal thinking of accuracy. There are people out there absolutely satisfied with a 25 mil constant depth gauge, using it for hard and soft wood. Others have this constant depth gauge with more than one setting and use 25 mil for hard wood and 30 or 35 mil for soft wood. Others have the Husky/Stihl/FOP progressive ones and can work with the given soft and hard settings. And others want something better than this and have met in this thread  So the next options are personalized type 1 or type 2 gauges, probably as dual setup. Gauge 2 at least is so linear that I personally don´t think about using the dual setup in the sense of one setting for the first and one setting for the second half of the chain but rather the already known hard and soft setting actually used for hard and soft wood. Type 1 is weaker at the second half of chain´s life, so there maybe is some potential in using two settings for the two halves.
A matter of taste once more.



Westboastfaller said:


> Operator grabs pull cord, spins around three times like an Olympic discus champion and launches the saw of the hillside...


Though understandable in this situation, that´s something to avoid, unless using a 'chinese fire cracker' (so we call them in Germany) instead of a 'real' chainsaw


----------



## hannes69 (May 8, 2018)

Hmm, it´s getting calm here, does that mean that some / all of you guys changed to the 'active mode' and you´re busy with raker depth gauge construction?


----------



## Westboastfaller (May 8, 2018)

No! The available data expands the knowledge.
I have replaced an existing gauge (that I no longer own anyway) with an improved virtual gauge. Now I'm better prepared for more virtual cutting or otherwise.

I'm not activity cutting for a living and haven't done any cutting for 13 months. I also have 13 months of Sobriety opposed to the previous 4 years which brought me 'interrupted sobriety' for my efforts. As Einstein said:
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over & over and expecting different results".
Change was needed in multiple areas of my life.

From the info I have seen thus far, dispite not seeing any of the common 3/8, 7/32 chain but by following the data patterns with the stihl chains and different gauges I could give a thesis on the whole subject. This of course would offer
an alternative for "Joe Shmoe and the bumper chain," (or high level pro's) with the saddle gauge also.

Do you want to go first? This is of course, without talking graphically about cutting.
Either way, I'll do one.


----------



## PogoInTheWoods (May 8, 2018)

Westboastfaller said:


> I could give a thesis on the whole subject.



*NO!!!!! LOL
*
And forgive my not bringing any new numbers to the thread yet. I've suddenly been swamped with saw rebuilds and busy with yard work now that the weather has stabilized somewhat in Ohio. We've gone from the wood stove to the A/C in just under two weeks and priorities have changed accordingly.

I did attempt cursory measurements of some Oregon LG and must admit it will be a tedious task to obtain super accurate numbers with a simple straight edge and a digital caliper. I spent additional time searching online hoping to maybe stumble across some specifications but came up empty there. If anyone (aside from the chain manufacturers themselves) would possibly have that information archived somewhere it may be @Philbert.

And if we _must _have a thesis competition, can it please be done as file attachments instead of more repetition in the thread itself of everyone's individual interpretation of the same basic premise? You can only beat a dead horse so much before your uneven cutters will miraculously begin cutting in a straight line with appropriately maintained rakers...., sober or not! (Congrats on that, btw. Been there. Done that.)


----------



## hannes69 (May 8, 2018)

Westboastfaller said:


> The available data expands the knowledge.


I hope so. 



Westboastfaller said:


> Now I'm better prepared for more virtual cutting or otherwise.


Okay. Virtual cutting. What a hobby this may be ?



Westboastfaller said:


> dispite not seeing any of the common 3/8, 7/32 chain


Hm. With 7/32 you surely mean a 7/32" file (that´s 5,5 mm here in metric land). My 3/8" Stihl Rapid Micro chain is normally filed with such a file, I personally use a grinder with a 3/16" grinding wheel (the 'normal' size for this pitch). So what do you mean exactly here with 'common' ? At least in Germany the 3/8" Stihl Rapid Micro or Rapid Super are THE common chains 
Stihl is a common manufacturer, 3/8 pitch is common, Rapid Micro is 'normal' cutter profile (semi chisel), Rapid Super is 'normal' cutter profile (full chisel), both are round filed with a 7/32" file (at least at the first half of the chain´s life, for the second half maybe a smaller file will fit better).
So my thinking was: By accident I own two common chain setups, so I could make use of them as examples: one chain from the pro or semipro side, the other chain from the hobby side. .325 is in between and .404 is absolutely pro.
So I thougth that it was a good fit to start with.
Or maybe another misunderstanding here? Don´t know for sure.



Westboastfaller said:


> Either way, I'll do one.


Yes


----------



## hannes69 (May 8, 2018)

PogoInTheWoods said:


> And forgive my not bringing any new numbers to the thread yet.


No problem. The word 'yet' is the critical one here 



PogoInTheWoods said:


> I did attempt cursory measurements of some Oregon LG and must admit it will be a tedious task to obtain super accurate numbers with a simple straight edge and a digital caliper.


The measurements don´t mean fun work, yes. I used a straight edge, a digital caliper, a pencil, a piece of paper, a 90° bent metal sheet a straight piece of metal sheet, a desk and many repeated measurements. Some of the measurements can´t be made directly due to some limitations, there´s some need of some helping tools.
When taking the time and thinking about it, the results should be accurate enough, I´m sure.



PogoInTheWoods said:


> I spent additional time searching online hoping to maybe stumble across some specifications but came up empty there.


I found no useful data as well. Landed at a virgin´s area here...



PogoInTheWoods said:


> If anyone (aside from the chain manufacturers themselves) would possibly have that information archived somewhere it may be @Philbert.


The manufacturers probably aren´t so pleased about releasing this sort of information. Philbert left this discussion here early because it seems that he didn´t like the fact that I critisized him. I personally have absolute no problem with Philbert and would be pleased if he reenters into the discussion again.



PogoInTheWoods said:


> And if we _must _have a thesis competition


Everything is possible, nothing is necessary


----------



## PogoInTheWoods (May 8, 2018)

Just a quick note to clarify that Stihl 3/8 chain typically calls for a 13/64 file and may be what the 3/8 x 7/32 reference is getting at. .Not sure that has much bearing on calculations anyway aside from the shape of the cutter being slightly different between Stihl and say Oregon. They both get ground with the same sized wheel, so... Some Oregon LG specifications should shed light there.

And far be it from me to speak for Philbert, but I highly doubt his lack of continued participation is based in and of itself on being criticized. He is one of the most helpful and highly regarded contributors to several forums on a variety of topics and has been for many years. Had you known that, perhaps his initial presence would have been addressed a bit more respectfully in general by you and would have resulted in additional participation. He is quite well versed on the subject of saw chain and is a valued asset to any such discussion. I think he just got bored rather quickly with the attitude in this thread and moved on to other, more friendly areas of interest. I would also respectfully suggest that this is the likely reason for so little traffic in the thread now.

That said...

And after a bit more work with the numbers for different chain types and a few of the Type 2 tools having been made and used for a while with quantifiable and consistent real-world results..., (and realistic opinions about their performance), I personally believe it would be a good idea to re-launch the subject in a new thread with a much simpler introduction to the topic and _none _of the math in order to reach (and connect with) the largest audience possible based on the sheer _simplicity _of the type 2 idea. Anyone interested in the details could obviously be referred to this thread.

The beauty of the tool and the reason for anyone to be interested is the elegance _of_ its simplicity, not the complexity of all the variables required to _arrive_ at such a solution.

It will take some time, but I predict the general idea will mature and eventually gain a respectable degree of acceptance by many who sharpen their own chains..., mostly just plain ol' folks who simply want to get the wood cut. Seems like it would be quite gratifying to reach those folks.

Okay, so it was not 'just a quick note'. Got a little carried away. Sorry.


----------



## Philbert (May 8, 2018)

PogoInTheWoods said:


> I did attempt cursory measurements of some Oregon LG and must admit it will be a tedious task to obtain super accurate numbers with a simple straight edge and a digital caliper.











$7 on eBay, plus some aluminum angle.
https://www.arboristsite.com/commun...cator-feedback-on-marketability.295188/page-2

Philbert


----------



## hannes69 (May 9, 2018)

PogoInTheWoods said:


> Had you known that, perhaps his initial presence would have been addressed a bit more respectfully in general by you and would have resulted in additional participation.


At some point in this thread I ran into strong head wind coming from different people at the same time, I felt offended, the discussion got heated up. If I didn´t treat some people in the right manner there in this context, I apologize for that.



PogoInTheWoods said:


> I think he just got bored rather quickly with the attitude in this thread and moved on to other, more friendly areas of interest.


Beside the time window spoken of above, I have the feeling of a friendly tone and attitude in this thread.



PogoInTheWoods said:


> I would also respectfully suggest that this is the likely reason for so little traffic in the thread now.


I don´t know. Maybe. I think there are more reasons. I have the impression that some people don´t like the software part of this story (and being mentioned this in the thread title already). Some don´t like the arrogance of the thread opener  The topic itself is complex in several parts. Many are interested in the cutter sharpening process but neglect the importance of the rakers.



PogoInTheWoods said:


> I personally believe it would be a good idea to re-launch the subject in a new thread with a much simpler introduction to the topic and _none _of the math in order to reach (and connect with) the largest audience possible based on the sheer _simplicity _of the type 2 idea.


Yes  Now it is a work in progress. I mean, I didn´t lie with the thread title. You can already make your own raker depth gauge, the software helps you. It is not as convenient as it maybe will be possible in the future.
This is another problem of this thread: There are some things mixed up. General discussions, specialised discussions. Some parts are prepared and you can start directly, other parts aren´t finished yet. But that´s the point of my idea: I found something out, made some pre work, presented it, and now it can be further developed. Like I took BobL´s work and developed some aspects of it further. It is a community project. At least at this point of development. The software is involved for several reasons, it helps presenting some aspects (like the tables with different numbers, the chain pictures), it always will help for special needs (a 'real' personalised raker depth gauge) and it will help while measuring chains to check the results in combination with a test depth gauge tool.
I maintained the type 1 on purpose. It is the 'well known' one. And we already see the ideas coming up of 'tuning' a given one. I wanted to show, that you can calculate this buayble one and make it yourself with personalized soft and hard settings. And I wanted to present a new idea, the type 2. I have the impression until now that there is some scepsis towards type 2 and more trust in type 1. Type 1 is offered officially by several manufacturers, type 2 is a 'garage production' of some German guy, so ....



PogoInTheWoods said:


> The beauty of the tool and the reason for anyone to be interested is the elegance _of_ its simplicity, not the complexity of all the variables required to _arrive_ at such a solution.


Yes  That maybe is the misunderstanding on some points here, I am very convinced about this solution and this is perceived as arrogant... The tool is simple. 
But in the meantime it is necessary to find some people having some 'zeal' in this matter as already mentioned earlier  And when developing something, we have to talk about variables and so on. 
All of these aspects are now mixed up and I can´t change it.
In the end, yes, a new thread should be useful. Some explanations, some photos, a list of common chains associated with the corresponding numbers to create the gauge with 'soft' and 'hard' presets (the novice mode). And a hint towards this thread, when there is the need / wish for specialization (the advanced mode). 



PogoInTheWoods said:


> Okay, so it was not 'just a quick note'. Got a little carried away. Sorry.


No problem, it´s ok like that.


----------



## hannes69 (May 9, 2018)

Philbert said:


> $7 on eBay, plus some aluminum angle.
> https://www.arboristsite.com/commun...cator-feedback-on-marketability.295188/page-2


Thanks for chiming in again, Philbert 
Your shown tool can measure the raker depth of a chain of course. 
To make use of my calculator dealing with different chains, we need some measurements of these chains additionally to the raker depth, e.g. distance between raker and rivet, distance between raker and tip of the cutter,... These needed measurements are shown in the start post, a pic showing the tab 'chain' in the calculator. The problem is to measure some of these with normal tools accurately enough. The rivet diameter e.g. is very easy, others are not so easy to manage...


----------



## Westboastfaller (May 9, 2018)

hannes69 said:


> Hm. With 7/32 you surely mean a 7/32" file (that´s 5,5 mm here in metric land). My 3/8" Stihl Rapid Micro chain is normally filed with such a file, I personally use a grinder with a 3/16" grinding wheel (the 'normal' size for this pitch). So
> I hope so.


Yes! As Pogo has explained, the specs calls for a13/64 or 6.2 mm file. Oregon, Carlton,
Windsor,Husqvarna and Woodland pro (Bailey's brand) I believe all call for a 7/32 file /6.5mm in.375 (3/8) I'm talking manufacturer's specs.
Same 3/16 disk..yes.

On a tiny tiny little very short side note, if I may:
I use 4 different file sizes ranging from 3/16 to 1/4
It was very common for me to
have new files in three sizes in my bag. I like to take the time before the first days work to file a few new chains from factor grind in regards to coast falling. Its easier to lower the gullet in stages from the smallest files, especially on the one side as it has a higher factory gullet with the exception of Husqvarna chain only, I believe.
With different activities and area's with combination work of slashing and falling dominantly dead tree's (Danger tree's/ snag falling) then commonly, I will just start with the 3/16 file instead of the 7/32 spec size.
I will just stay with that size as long as its convenient and when its not, then the next size up will fix the cutter edge damage very fast and get you going in two minutes. Next time you sharpen, then you can cut another stage of the gullet to accommodate it for the right depth . After I fix the danage by going up a size to 7/32 then I can carve back in with the 3/16 on the next round and repeat

Its a style that has payed for many chainsaws and chain I'm sure with the extra time I gain on piece work and with sometimes shorter days....
Fire hours or northern winter days ect.
I/4" file I would use in the valley for Hardwoods. So there is all sorts, its about doing the absolute best you can with the task ahead.


----------



## hannes69 (May 10, 2018)

^^ I looked up the manufacturers´specs and you are right  Stihl recommends 3/16" file for .325 chains, 13/64" file for 3/8 chains and 7/32" file for .404 chains. Other manufacturers recommend 7/32" file for 3/8 chains. I know at least in Germany fom the forum here, that many start with a 7/32" file, change to a 13/64" file at half life and land at a 3/16" file at the end of life point when hand filing 3/8 chains.
I have no clue about that and use a 3/16" grinding wheel from start to end 
I don´t know how large the influence of this difference is. When using a smaller file, the hook of the cutter is more pronounced and should be more aggressive. But the difference between a 7/32" and a 13/64" file is only 7% in diameter, so it should be at least no night and day difference...
Another interesting number BTW: On a Stihl chain cardboard box there´s a drawing of a cutter showing the number of 10° meaning the spec of the angle between the raker tip, rest of the raker and horizontal line. In my examples for nomal profile 3/8 chain, this angle varies from 18° down to 10° for gauge type 1 and 18° down to 11° for gauge type 2, so more or less the same for both types. When you follow the natural line of the gauge tool of course.
Optionally you can give the raker a shape differing from that after defining the height with the gauge tool.
But then we land in another field and can open the discussion for the 'right' raker shape


----------



## Westboastfaller (May 10, 2018)

hannes69 said:


> View attachment 650056
> 
> BTW, if someone wonders about the odd value of 5.9° in between 6.3° and 6.2° for a cutter wearing of 20 mil (comparable 'glitch' in other examples):
> This is due to the initial raker depth of 25 mil for a new chain. For 0 mil wearing = new chain this leads to a cutting angle of 6.3°. Because the chain already has this depth. If the chain would have a higher raker, the gauge tool in this example would lead to a raker depth of 21.7 mil and a cutting angle of 5.5° fo the 0 mil wearing point, if we would have to file the raker down from a higher point to our initial value.
> The default value of 25 mil helps us at this point


 So the second reading .020" cutter wear reading is a glitch obvious. So its taking a reading from the full raker height with .020 cutter wear due to having the presetting of .025" depth = 6.3° cutting angle in the software already, that's set by you?



What do you exactly mean " IF the chain were to have a higher raker?

Or is that it above?

2)
You didn't use the presenting on all of them correct?

On PGE 5 with the Carlton low pro.
It looks like you preset a 7.1,° cutting angle at .025
You could make the argument to ignore the first two Reading with your gauge and make the assumption it would start at sbout 6.2- 6.3 then drop at 6.5° as it does. This is based on the common patterns all well the patterns of the remaining numbers.

The 7.1 is not even close to flowing with the rest.
The 7.1 flows nice with the other gauge though. Why would this be?
Your gauge is lower at the base but has less cutting angle except at the end. How is this possible? Something does not seen right here.
*The numbers at the end of the chain are not in question.

3)
On page 9, you used the .025 default depth with the Oregon gauge.
So if I ignore the first two numbers,
By following the pattern flow, it says it starts at about 17- 18 thou approx (according to almost 1/3 of the cutting angle gone)
on the Stihl RM.

I do know the husky gauge is light because I use that gauge on the softwood with that chain now and then and the factory .025" is lower or about the same as my gauge at .030"

4)
Page 9, last example:
.325 softwood gauge on 3/8 stihl RM would be a good example of you not using a "preset default mode it would appear. Correct? This starts with 9+° and flows correctly, it would appear.

Since we are learning the gauges are all different then using the default setting is something to be reconsidered?

Please correct any misunderstanding I may have with my post.

Thanx


----------



## hannes69 (May 10, 2018)

Westboastfaller said:


> So the .020" cutter wear reading is taken from the full raker height due to a presetting of .025" depth = 6.3° cutting angle that's set by you.
> What do you exactly mean " if the chain were to have a higher raker?
> [...] You didn't use the presenting an all of them did you?


Ok, I try to use other words to explain: 
Let´s first assume case A (which doesn´t reflect reality!): You buy a 3/8 Stihl RM chain, which has NO raker depth. So initially with a brand new chain the raker has the same height as the cutter. Then you can´t start off cutting with this chain, you have to define first your raker depth. So you can now manually file down the raker to a depth of 25 mil without using a gauge tool or whatever. This means you have now a chain as you can buy it. A brand new chain with a raker depth of 25 mil. Out of the cutters´s geometry this corresponds directly to a cutting angle of 6.3° with this Stihl chain.
Now case B: you buy another time the already mentioned chain with NO raker depth. This time you don´t file the raker down manually to a depth of 25 mil, instead you use one of my raker depth gauges. What happens? Using gauge type 1 for the example of page 5, you get the same number of a raker depth of 25 mil. Because the gauge´s design variables (thickness and pivot length) were set by me in such a way, that the gauge tool starts with 25 mil at the 0 mil wearing point = new chain 
Type 2 is a different case: In this example with the 'initially NO raker depth' chain, my gauge type 2 would achieve a raker depth of 23.8 mil corresponding to a cutting angle of 6.0°. 
Now we change to reality: You can´t buy a chain with NO raker depth. The mentioned Stihl chain has ALREADY a raker depth of 25 mil and a cutting angle of 6.3° when you buy it. 
So back to the examples of page 5, in each case the values for the first three cutting angles you achieve in reality vs. what you would achieve when having a chain with NO raker depth:

Stihl with type 1: 6.3, 6.5, 6,6 / 6.3, 6.5, 6.6
Stihl with type 2: 6.3, 6,4, 6,6 / 6.0, 6.4, 6.6
Carlton with type 1: 7.1, 7.0, 7.0 / 6.9, 7.0, 7.0
Carlton with type 2: 7.1, 6.0, 6.3 / 5.5, 6.0, 6.3



Westboastfaller said:


> The 7.1 is not even close to flowing with the rest.
> The 7.1 flows nice with the other gauge thought. Why would this be?
> Your gauge is lower at the base but has less cutting angle except at the end. How is this possible.


I hope this question is now answered with the numbers given directly above 
For type 1 the 7.1° is flowing with the rest, because I did set the gauge´s design parameters in such a way. 
As I already mentioned: This is not that easy with type 2 when assuming given steel material thicknesses. In these examples on page 5 I took common steel thicknesses of 39 mil and 47 mil (commonly available in Germany). So in this example my type 2 seems not to perform as perfect as it could.
But: I can do the same thing here of course, as I have shown for the Stihl chain above on page 11, I aim for a gauge tool design parameter value as perfect as possible but now have the little problem of having to use a not common material thickness.
For the Carlton lo pro chain this means now using a material thickness of 43 mil when aiming for the initial cutting angle of 7.1° and allowing a small overhead.
Then we have the following distribution of numbers:




Not bad I think 
BTW: The Carlton chain I use is type N1C-BL, meaning 3/8 low profile, 0.050" driving link gauge, semi chisel, bumper style. The initial cutting angle is 7.1° according to my measurements, and Carlton recommends a sharpening angle of 35° for this chain, so Carlton is more on the 'aggressive' path 



Westboastfaller said:


> On page 9, you used the .025 default depth with the Oregon gauge.
> So if I ignore the first two numbers,
> By following the pattern flow, it says it starts at about 17- 18 thou approx (according to 1/3 of the cutting angle gone)
> on Stihl RM.
> I do know the husky gauge is light because I use that gauge on the softwood with that chain now and then and the factory .025 factory is lower/same as my gauge.


According to my numbers the start would be at 16.3 mil, so the first three numbers would be 4.1, 4.3, 4,5 degree instead of the 'real' 6.3, 4.8, 4.5 degree. The Husky gauge with hard setting used on Stihl does really mean HARD 



Westboastfaller said:


> Page 9, last example:
> .325 softwood gauge on 3/8 stihl RM would be a good example of you not using a "preset default mode it would appear.


At least the first quarter delivers a little bit too high values of the cutting angles for my taste, but with the rest it would be a suitable 'really soft wood' setup.

--------------------------
Nice seeing you getting deeper into the numbers, you seem to land in the 'zeal zone'


----------



## PogoInTheWoods (May 10, 2018)

Nice to see renewed activity and Philbert dropping back in for a cup of coffee, too.

After reading the new material (and understanding a bit more as I read), a thought just occurred to me regarding what seems to be the limiting factor in establishing better linearity with the Type 2 tool..., which if I'm not mistaken, is the material thickness relative to the pivot point. With lower seeming to be better for the additional length required to achieve smoother numbers, and a rivet being as low as can be achieved while still using a component of the chain itself as the reference point (which _still_ obviously works quite well), I wonder if establishing a defined pivot point on the tool itself would be another way to approach the material thickness issue? If maybe for no other reason than to accommodate different material thicknesses? Acid and grinding have been mentioned as methods to achieve a more specific (calculation friendly?) material thickness. And while I realize the pivot point on the rivet itself changes slightly as the length between the cutter and raker increases, wouldn't a shallow notch filed into/across the tool at the point where it rides on the rivet offer some additional design flexibility relative to material thickness by providing a slightly lower yet reference point than the actual top of the rivet..., call it the _virtual_ pivot point? 

Yeah, I know..., another variable. But if some flexibility in choosing a material type can be achieved by simply filing a rivet-sized arch (albeit relatively shallow) at the pivot point which would correspond to an appropriate slot length for achieving a desired result, well, I could then see the redneck factor kickin' in and wives wondering what happened to their baking pans and cookie trays.....again. (I know mine would.) LOL

Just thinking out loud about how to possibly broaden the material selection and maybe push just a little further past the current pivot point restriction. Even thicker materials could be used if one were to also grind down the notch wide enough to accommodate a file at the raker location, but that deviates rather dramatically from the simplicity factor and well into the customization realm..., pretty much beyond the original scope of the idea, but still plausible.

Will try to get the Oregon LG numbers soon. Gonna need to be in the correct frame of mind for that little exercise.

In the meantime, where can I find another cookie sheet?

​


----------



## Westboastfaller (May 10, 2018)

Hannes
No, I already know all that...I was just testing you joking with you.
Thank you. I edited much of my post to ensure you would understand
but you had already read and gathered. Thank you. I have been following more of the trends so I was ignoring the ones out of sinc.
I was stumped with the equality with the low pro examples. I remember now that you said you were bound by material and questioned the viability of thinner material. Its all about 'possibility but certain possibilities have limitations.
Its a give and take world. A thinner material of 43 thou may not be something you would file directly over. Anyway, point taken with the example and explanation/s. You had It right the first time with the thicker material.


----------



## Philbert (May 10, 2018)

PogoInTheWoods said:


> In the meantime, where can I find another cookie sheet?


Always buying used kitchen stuff at garage / estate sales, thrift shops, flea markets . . . .

https://www.arboristsite.com/community/threads/chainsaws-and-home-economics.220545/

Philbert​


----------



## Westboastfaller (May 10, 2018)

PogoInTheWoods said:


> Nice to see renewed activity and Philbert dropping back in for a cup of coffee, too.
> 
> After reading the new material (and understanding a bit more as I read), a thought just occurred to me regarding what seems to be the limiting factor in establishing better linearity with the Type 2 tool..., which if I'm not mistaken, is the material thickness relative to the pivot point. With lower seeming to be better for the additional length required to achieve smoother numbers, and a rivet being as low as can be achieved while still using a component of the chain itself as the reference point (which _still_ obviously works quite well), I wonder if establishing a defined pivot point on the tool itself would be another way to approach the material thickness issue? If maybe for no other reason than to accommodate different material thicknesses? Acid and grinding have been mentioned as methods to achieve a more specific (calculation friendly?) material thickness. And while I realize the pivot point on the rivet itself changes slightly as the length between the cutter and raker increases, wouldn't a shallow notch filed into/across the tool at the point where it rides on the rivet offer some additional design flexibility relative to material thickness by providing a slightly lower yet reference point than the actual top of the rivet..., call it the _virtual_ pivot point?
> 
> ...


 lol ..always good for s laugh.

I thought about that earlier but figured they were quite thin but I looked back in the 0P and they are 1 mm & 1.2 mm. Yes you would have an option there with a bevelled end at the pivot and a thinning at the swing then you will still have the thickness in the middle. Its all about customising for gain. Of course this isn't needed in most applications, I don't believe.

He is going to need to bring relevant finding and measurement forward in an organized, sorted manner.
I liked your idea of starting another thread down the road once more things are ironed out.
I am going to quote your post from yesterday next.


----------



## hannes69 (May 11, 2018)

PogoInTheWoods said:


> a thought just occurred to me regarding what seems to be the limiting factor in establishing better linearity with the Type 2 tool..., which if I'm not mistaken, is the material thickness relative to the pivot point. With lower seeming to be better for the additional length required to achieve smoother numbers, and a rivet being as low as can be achieved while still using a component of the chain itself as the reference point (which _still_ obviously works quite well)


Type 2 is already a linear tool 
Serious again:
Here´s a drawing showing why the rivet is more or less already the sweet spot. It shows the depth gauge tool (47 mil thickness) on the Stihl 3/8 RM chain, 5 wearing points at the same time (0/25/50/75/100 %). The lines represent the bottom line of the tool, the tool is now maintaining a CONSTANT cutting angle of 6.3°.




If these 5 lines would cross in one point, you would have a perfect pivot point, maintaining a constant cutting angle for the real tool. Obviously this is not the case  So all we can do is to find the best pivot point. Now you see that the rivet is the best point in this case already. The 100% wearing line is the lowest of course, if you remove material from the tool in the rivet area to come down to this point, you have the perfect cutting angle for this point, but obviously all other values would then be too high.
The picture reveals another thing: Now you SEE why type 2 is better than type 1: Along the tie strap line there is a way larger variation compared to the pivot point region near the rivet used by type 2 



PogoInTheWoods said:


> I wonder if establishing a defined pivot point on the tool itself would be another way to approach the material thickness issue? If maybe for no other reason than to accommodate different material thicknesses? Acid and grinding have been mentioned as methods to achieve a more specific (calculation friendly?) material thickness.


Yeah, the point with the material thickness... Acid: I didn´t try it on my own, but a friend of mine being in metal business mentioned he has done things like that and it should work. You can put the tool into a glass with the acid and the tool then gets thinner as a whole. Grinding: Meditative work  Circular movement of the tool onto sand paper or similar material. Then of course there is the possibility to grind down the material only on one side of the tool. My calculator doesn´t deal with this possibility at the moment. That is definitely a point to discuss further when optimizing gauge type 2.



PogoInTheWoods said:


> And while I realize the pivot point on the rivet itself changes slightly as the length between the cutter and raker increases, wouldn't a shallow notch filed into/across the tool at the point where it rides on the rivet offer some additional design flexibility relative to material thickness by providing a slightly lower yet reference point than the actual top of the rivet..., call it the _virtual_ pivot point?


The change of the pivot point on the rivet during the chain´s life is rather small to work with I think. The notch itself would be another possibility regarding the topic above to deal with given material thickness, yes.



PogoInTheWoods said:


> Just thinking out loud about how to possibly broaden the material selection and maybe push just a little further past the current pivot point restriction.


Good thoughts  One point at the moment is: I only have numbers for 3/8 chains. And I´ve found suitable pivot points for gauge type 2 for these chains, being two different rivets for 3/8 normal and 3/8 low profile. I´m not 100% sure if this is automatically the case for .325 and .404 chains then. We´ll see  On the other side the gauge tool has to sit onto something, so there must be a pivot point on the chain. The top side of a tie strap is very obvious, the top side of the rivet was obvious for me too (  ), maybe with clever thinking there are more possibilities to make use of, don´t know....



PogoInTheWoods said:


> Will try to get the Oregon LG numbers soon. Gonna need to be in the correct frame of mind for that little exercise.


Yes  A stable hand, piece of mind, some meditation, maybe a beer or two  This exercise is more difficult and time consuming than one may think intuitively, I know that hehe.



PogoInTheWoods said:


> In the meantime, where can I find another cookie sheet?


Yeah, you never can own too many cookie sheets 

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

Westboastfaller previously had some questions concerning some numbers, I made an interesting observation dealing with these:

.325 'Soft' Position -- 14.80mm
.325 'Hard' Position -- 19.00mm
Material Thickness -- .84mm

3/8 'Soft' Position -- 19.00mm
3/8 'Hard' Position -- 23.30mm
Material Thickness -- .84mm

.404 'Soft' Position -- 19.00mm
.404 'Hard' Position -- 22.00mm
Material Thickness -- .75mm

I gave the numbers for putting this gauges virtually onto the Stihl 3/8 RM chain. In the meantime I came across this: There should be some problems when using this tools with Stihl 3/8.
When looking at yor photos, the .325 and 3/8 tools have a simple rectangular slot. When the distance that I call 'pivot length' gets too long, the tool won´t sit onto the tie strap but instead onto the driving link! The .404 one has an additional smaller slot. This allows to fit the driving link into it. But: when the pivot length gets too long, this tool won´t sit onto the Stihl tie strap anymore, it will simply fall down 
Measuring my Stihl chain quick and dirty this means: When the pivot length gets longer than 16mm the gauge tool starts to sit onto the top side of the driving link when the second slot of the gauge tool is missing. When the pivot length gets longer than 20mm the tool with the second slot falls down.
I hope I have explained that well enough, it´s not that that simple to find the right words...
What I want to say: The theoretical performance of the tool is one thing, it doesn´t help if you can´t use the tool actually 
The problem here comes up due to the relative low material thickness. If the material is thin, the pivot length has to grow of course to get the desired results. With a thicker material the pivot length gets shorter and you come more into the 'safe' area in the middle of the tie strap.
The interesting point here is: There must definitely be a bigger difference between 3/8 Stihl and 3/8 Husky chain.
As the numbers already have shown, the Husky tool on the Stihl chain will lead to a very 'hard' setting. And the correct 3/8 tool (hard) doesn´t seem to fit onto the Stihl chain. You can use it, I have shown the 'bad' numbers, and these numbers are in reality even worse, because the tool sits onto the driving link and so the tool sits higher than calculated and the raker depth value gets lower.
So we already see, that the buyable tools aren´t universal...

This speaks another time for doing some chain measurements, the different manufacturers seem to make things more differently than I have thought...
So: gauge type 1 has the advantage to play with 'pivot length' in combination with the material thickness, but this has some limits of course.
BTW the material thickness of 0.75mm or 0.84mm is surprisingly low. Ok, you don´t put normally a lot of pressure onto this tool during filing, but a tool should withstand some impact like sitting on it, throwing it on the floor,... There must be some reason that they chose this one (apart from simply being cheaper than thicker material  )
The secrets of raker depth tools or the philosophical dimension once again...


----------



## hannes69 (May 11, 2018)

Philbert said:


> Always buying used kitchen stuff at garage / estate sales, thrift shops, flea markets . . . .
> 
> https://www.arboristsite.com/community/threads/chainsaws-and-home-economics.220545/


 The start post of this thread is really nice 
Especially "a dining room table (for showing off newly purchased saws)"


----------



## hannes69 (May 11, 2018)

Westboastfaller said:


> Hannes
> No, I already know all that...I was just testing you joking with you.


I know that you already know ALL of that 
While passing all of these tests with grade A, I´ll hopefully skip a class


----------



## Westboastfaller (May 11, 2018)

Westboastfaller said:


> I could give a thesis on the whole subject.





PogoInTheWoods said:


> *NO!!!!! LOL
> *


Lmao
Could have turned out to be Feces.
Maybe when its almost all said and done then 'lets rock'.



PogoInTheWoods said:


> Stihl 3/8 chain typically calls for a 13/64 file and may be what the 3/8 x 7/32 reference is getting at. .Not sure that has much bearing on calculations anyway aside from the shape of the cutter being slightly different between Stihl and say Oregon. They both get ground with the same sized wheel, so... Some Oregon LG specifications should shed light there.


A grinder and spec round files are apple's & oranges. The stone just cuts the cutter edge and has plenty of clearance but a spec file doesn't even have the room at the end

As far as Oregon specs shedding more light:
We will certainly know exactly why. What is obvious though, is that there is differences between Stihl RM and Oregon LG chain cutter height to the chassis. Bigger file means more clearance in this case but we have to look at it all with both chain specs needed here as well both factory raker plate measurements.
It has been established that Carlton gauge is the most aggressive gauge.
so that would tell me its shorter from base to raker slot, possibly a bit thinner? Is it as aggressive on Carlton 3/8 × 7/32 or is it allowed to sit higher?...IDK, I'm thinking the base is higher?

With the taller cutter, that I am saying the OregonLG will have over the Stihl RM; This will put the gauge on a steeper angle. We should already know that shortening the base does the same thing. Common sense right? We have also learned from the software that lowering the base slightly, that there is gains to be had with out disrupting the cutting angle and benefit a more desired cutting angle as the teeth wear. (At least in these examples with his gauge thus far) This is 'all' about the increased angle of the raker gauge that is slightly increased from 'stock' examples..or at least its the key to explaining and understand.

Look at the number trends with the stihl gauge and his gauge. His gauge has a latter onslaught of peak numbers with the stihl RM chain/ (11.8 ° cutter tooth back slope.)
His hits the pinical pivot between .100" - .140"cutter wear (an 1/8" =.125" ) When the stihl gauge lays at the exact same angle, it reaches the pivot at .O40" cutter wear. Although it starts out flatter it still needs to drop a bit more to peak.

What we see with the low pro stihl / 7° cutter tooth back slope is that the stihl gauge lays down below 'the angle' therefore started at 7.1 cutter angle and declined. Moreover: Hannes's gauge was obviously above the pinical pivot angle as his numbers climbed then dropped. (As they have always done).

'Pinical pivot'
The gauge angle before the cutter angle decline where the raker depth ratio (material removed) is greatest, thus increasing the cutting angle.

^^Could use a better name ? as the software shows its more a small window in relation to cutter wear and gauge angle.

Above are conclusions from my observations.

My theory with the Oregon Lg is that the higher cutter makes a steeper angle so therefore the husky gauge is longer from raker slot to its base in order to get the right balance.
When I use the gauge on a new Oregon chain with .030, likely its .005" that comes of. Not the case with Stihl RM. I'm obviously running a higher raker. The graff shows the softwood setting is .025 on Stihl RM
I've heard it said on here as well, I've thought the same, and that is, its like a can get Oregon chain sharper? Its just the depth difference that's fooling me.
A faller I worked with said its a trick to use a husky 404 soft setting on 3/8 Oregon chain??
Its the other way around. .325 soft setting on 3/8. His saws were hungry. According to the measurements, Husqvarna 404 and 3/8 soft setting are the same and because the 404 is thinner then he was right as well.







PogoInTheWoods said:


> You can only beat a dead horse so much before your uneven cutters will miraculously begin cutting in a straight line with appropriately maintained rakers...., sober or not! (Congrats on that, btw. Been there. Done that.)


Sober!
Thank you very much. Right back at ya.
I hope my internet time hasn't ran out?


----------



## hannes69 (May 12, 2018)

Here some more drawings for illustration the given task.
Same approach like in post #226. You see again the gauge tool sitting on the Stihl 3/8 RM chain, now only for 3 different wearing points simultaneously (0/50/100 %). Less lines, better too see some things, less work for me 

1. constant cutting angle 6.3°, gauge tool thickness 1.2mm (47 mil)
2. constant cutting angle 6.3°, gauge tool thickness 1.0mm (39 mil)
3. constant cutting angle 8.0°, gauge tool thickness 1.2mm (47 mil)
4. constant cutting angle 8.0°, gauge tool thickness 1.0mm (39 mil)










So you see 2 hard and 2 soft setups with differing gauge tool material thickness.
I have marked the 'best' potential pivot point (if we could choose it freely) when aiming for an even distribution of the error.
I think such drawings can help a bit for imagination some things, the numbering tables show some other aspects, but they are clearly worse for imagination.
There are some interesting things to detect:
E.g. drawing #4: Remember the numbers for type 2 gauge 1.0mm (39 mil) thickness on Stihl 3/8? Now you see what´s going on. The 2 lines of the 0% and 50% wearing points cross more or less exactly onto the rivet. So perfect behaviour for the first half of the chain´s life. But you clearly see, that when considering the 100% wearing point as well, the ideal pivot point drifts to the left and downwards when spreading the error. But in this place is nothing to hold the gauge tool of course 
And we see once again the coincidence between given material thickness and rivet location. It is pure luck that the ideal pivot point for 6.3° hard cutting angle sits on the rivet when using 47 mil material. And it is pure luck that for a 8.0° soft cutting angle the ideal pivot point for the first half of the chain´s life sits on the rivet as well for 39 mil material.
I don´t know if we have the same sort of luck with e.g. Oregon chain or .325 or .404 pitch. Maybe 

I think these drawings should also help to answer some of Westboastfallers questions or connect to his theories


----------



## Philbert (May 12, 2018)

Have you guys taken into account the curvature of the bar (where the angle is measured, and the various positions where different cutters cut) when making these caclulations?

Philbert


----------



## Westboastfaller (May 12, 2018)

hannes69 said:


> There should be some problems when using this tools with Stihl 3/8.
> When looking at your photo's, the .325 and 3/8 tools have a simple rectangular slot. When the distance that I call 'pivot length' gets too long, the tool won´t sit onto the tie strap but instead onto the driving link!


 Great drafts. It makes it easy for people to see what is going on.

With the Stihl RM chain, the Oregon/ Husqvarna soft setting gives you the same as the hard setting as your numbers show. Now this was only for modifying the gauge or starting from scratch. I suggested if you take the measurements from the highest point of the chassis then shorten it until optional numbers could be achieved. I believe that's what you did. I also suggested that the tabs would get in the way and they were not needed. I do use the tie strap as the very first time I tried to saddle it over both tie straps on full house Oregon chain and much to my surprise it wouldn't quite fit??? So a pryed it on with my bar wrench after a few attempts and filed the raker. It was even hard to pull off so I figured there was no way I was going to do that every tooth so I flipped the one side on the tie strap and that's the way I have always done it. Yes so its from a lower point but because its much longer this way then its going to be a bit higher = little less than .025 on Stihl RM with husky soft setting. Your are right.
If I want a bit more depth then I drop it off the strap on the side I'm filing from. This is always the inside to the outside for me on chisel chain.
It will sit a bit cockeyed though.
So I'm aware of all your concerns.

* It looked like in Pogo's pic's that he has it straddled so it kind of has me puzzled?? It 'looks like' but I can only see It clearing one strap in the picture. If it doesn't straddle then there will be a gap on what should be the base. ,(as you know) The closed end of the rectangle. On my gauges you would have to grind it wider just slightly. If in fact it is designed to sit on the closed end of the triangle over both straps (as it would appear) and not on one tie strap then this would affect my cutting angle on the second half of the chains life mostly and more so than it would if the inner base touched.
I have been thinking about this for a week, that it's very plausible, giving me too high of a cutting angle spread between shorter and longer teeth?
We will get to see what is going on soon.

Anyway, you were asking how to get a lower base for better numbers yet.
We came up with using the highest point of the chassis and shortening the 'pivot distance' (base to inside raker) we used a .325 virtual husky gauge on 3/8 Stihl RM to mod for softwood settings.

Now your concerns,
As I said before, you can just cut the base square at your pivot distance as you do not need it for THIS mod. Its just a resting point.
Could you have it for this mod?
Yes. You could just slightly widen the lower tabs that extend past the base.
In my experience they need it.
I could just only have one tab as I always file to the outside with chisel with the lean of the raker but I hold it from the bottom on one direction so they would serve a purpose for my awkward style. Now I have another option of lifting it on the tie strap that's a bit higher raker. I could use it near the beginning of the chain if I wanted.

Next
Your inside raker is your first rivet centre.
Shortly after the third rivet from centre the tie strap starts to round and you can not maintain the same height in reality? Got ya! It has to be measured from the straps if it falls in the middle. If it rests on the curve closest to the raker and needs lifting then one could use a lick of JB weld?Its easy to sand a bit until its on the sweet spot. It can also rest on the opposite curve at the top. It will maintain the correct height if that so happens to be where it would fall.

With the virtual dual gauge for softwood we did with the .325" Husky gauge mod on Stihl RM 3/8 chain then this looks to be the case.
17.5 mm approx is third centre rivet.
You worked out that it needed .50" 1.25 mm cut from the .325 hard setting of 19mm =17.75
So that sides good but in order to get the high back numbers we used the 3.25 soft setting at 14mm (p 9)
Centre rivet is about 17.5 and you say approx 16mm is the least you can go at this height because we have a drop floor then the 14 mm standard is not long enough. You would have to put a bottom crease then grind to find your angle or tape the slot on one side and epoxy between the tabs to extend it slightly. Epoxy may be your friend in this case, as well for maintaining optimal position.

So 3 rivets to centre on .375 = 3/8 ×2 6/8 = 3/4 = .750"
Round up 39 thou to 40 thou =1mm
2.5mm = .100"
7 x 2.5 = 17.5mm ? Close enough for what I do...nothing.. Lol

Teacher always said, "show your work^^^.lol
/QUOTE]


----------



## Westboastfaller (May 13, 2018)

Philbert said:


> Always buying used kitchen stuff at garage / estate sales, thrift shops, flea markets . . . .
> 
> https://www.arboristsite.com/community/threads/chainsaws-and-home-economics.220545/
> 
> Philbert​


 Very funny. You have a good sense of humor. They also say there is always an element of truth to a joke^^ I suppose in this case it's just our human condition that's so funny.
Did you know Jerry Seinfeld is the wealthiest film/television star by far (non production owner) with a net worth of about $800,000,000 (stats from 4 yrs back)
All made from his observations on the human condition.

Second was a movie star from Bolywood at $600,000,000


----------



## Modifiedmark (May 13, 2018)

hannes69 said:


> Thanks for the compliment
> 
> 
> Yes, if you were taught the 'total manual' method, this certainly will work out very well, if practised enough.
> ...



You got mad when folks didn't just buy into your computer aided mumbo jumbo but then come and say you don't/can't file a chain by hand? Seriously? 

You cut wood all day with just two chains and never touch them up so your cutting half your time with less then sharp chains and your preaching on rakers? 

Experienced cutters can go to the woods with one chain, a round file with a handle and a flat file and will cut circles around your machine sharpened chains. 
Far as I'm concerned any credibility you might have had is gone.


----------



## hannes69 (May 13, 2018)

Modifiedmark said:


> You got mad when folks didn't just buy into your computer aided mumbo jumbo but then come and say you don't/can't file a chain by hand? Seriously?


You chime into this thread. I don´t have the whole overview but I´m thinking this is your first post in this thread here. You personally don´t deliver something useful regarding the thread´s topic but you´re obviously thinking that you´re in a good position to critisize anything? Seriously? It´s up to you to critisize something concerning the topic here, so maybe when I make false assumptions, neglect something and so on, but what the heck is your goal by simply critisizing my person? Computer aided mumbo jumbo means translated for your person seemingly: You personally don´t like computers, you maybe don´t have the brain for thinking about it and don´t understand many aspects we´re talking here about. Once again the discussion earlier craftmen vs. theorist. You´re obviously on the practical side and don´t like theory. No problem, but what do you want in this thread here then? Making trouble. When feeling bored find another hobby.
It is absolutely not necessary being able to hand file a chain. If you go to the woods with enough chains. Two are enough for me, maybe not for anybody. It is advisable that you can hand file a chain of course. 
Nice thinking, making a chain grinder feel like he is 'cheating'. Only hand filing is the one and only true method. I´m 100% sure that many hand filed chains have way less performance than a machine grinded chain. Of course with much experience a hand filed chain CAN outperform a machine grinded one, but for a beginner in hand filing I would bet on the machine grinded one...
And: being able to hand file a chain has no direct relation to being able to make a suitable raker depth gauge. It even isn´t necessary to have experience with a chainsaw. We´re talking here about 'how to achieve a suitable rather constant cutting angle'. Theory and discussion how to realize this theory practically.



Modifiedmark said:


> You cut wood all day with just two chains and never touch them up so your cutting half your time with less then sharp chains and your preaching on rakers?


I´m not preaching anything. I´m not a salesman, you don´t have to 'buy' my product. It´s not my goal to convince somebody of anything.
Yes, I cut wood all day with just two chains. I cut only pine, nothing else than pine, this wood is soft. When not touching sand, chains, dirt and so on, the two chains last the whole day FOR ME, yes. I don´t say this is the case for you or everyone else, it is the case for me. One chain is sharp enough after a few hours of work. The working speed in really soft wood is largely influenced by raker depth in my experience. It doesn´t make up a total dull chain of course, but in my experience a rather sharp chain + the right cutter depth are the right approach for my setup.



Modifiedmark said:


> Far as I'm concerned any credibility you might have had is gone.


Your thinking, your attitude, your problem. You don´t have to trust in my methods. As your credibillity is gone, it´s the best approach for you to make yourself gone as well in this thread.


------------------------------
And once again remembering this: I don´t want to go this path in this thread. And feel assured that I simply make the difference. I want to keep up the general friendly attitude in this thread and am willing to work constructively on the given topic. Like I already said, the saying in Germany is 'like you´re shouting into the wood, it comes back this way to you'. Or another one says 'you want to sh*t onto my head? I can do the same thing as well...'.
-------------------------------
To all people out there thinking about the topic here 'mumbo jumbo': Fell free thinking this way, but PLEASE stay out of this thread then, it won´t help anybody to chime in to just say 'what a piece of crap are you making here'.
Thank you.


----------



## Westboastfaller (May 13, 2018)

Philbert said:


> View attachment 651090
> 
> 
> View attachment 651091
> ...


 thanks for the pics and attachments. I've never heard anything of DAF prior to this thread.
Noted that your post from the thread in the link said something to this affect..as follows:
IF a guy was real fussy about accuracy then you would make a channel for the chain and attach a back to keep it from going forward and back and keep everything true
like Bob L did in his thread opposed to trying to do it on the bar itself (referencing the curvature of the bar).
-------------------------------------------------

I believe you said these pictures in these examples of the saw on the bar doing the rakers, were posted by someone else, somewhere else.
I will also note you posted this I believe to suggest an inexpensive tool for measurement.

Apart from the great example with data that Hannes gave on p 1 as to why the saddle gauge is not good when the chain wears. The other problem I will mention as its not been mentioned here and that is if it were to rest on two high cutters and you have a short one then you get a high raker. As well the reverse scenario would get you a low raker.

The DAF obvious will keep the cutting angle, as the saddle gauge won't but will only be as good as the teeth are even.
I would have to assume it could be time consuming and certainly a shop tool. One mans opinion. Great and inexpensive little tool though.





Philbert said:


> Have you guys taken into account the curvature of the bar (where the angle is measured, and the various positions where different cutters cut) when making these caclulations?
> 
> Philbert


It should be done on a horizontal flat as illustrated.

If its a large bar with a deep belly where we have the "up the hill, down the hill" effect, I would still consider that a horizontal flat. Just on the hump is where one may see a slight gap open up between the relevant sections. About 1.3" (four rivets) from back of cutter plate to tip of tie strap, which he is using. Five rivets and about 1.7" normally.
Take a 6" - 8" straight edge on a standard bar like the Husky bar in the pic. Mark at the distance of the back of cutter to tip of tie and mark one just past the fifth rivot. See where you can get your feeler gauges in. The whole straight edge should sit flat on most all of the main bar.


There is nothing that I would want to do about tapers or can do about curvatures such as rounding the tip. Obviously a guy wouldn't want to do his rakers in the curve but could act as a trick for a little bit more on a worn chain.

Compensations for species, angles, power, felling dogs, as well ones with greater size and differently designed, will need to be ironed out with the chain file in the field.


----------



## Modifiedmark (May 13, 2018)

hannes69 said:


> You chime into this thread. I don´t have the whole overview but I´m thinking this is your first post in this thread here. You personally don´t deliver something useful regarding the thread´s topic but you´re obviously thinking that you´re in a good position to critisize anything? Seriously? It´s up to you to critisize something concerning the topic here, so maybe when I make false assumptions, neglect something and so on, but what the heck is your goal by simply critisizing my person? Computer aided mumbo jumbo means translated for your person seemingly: You personally don´t like computers, you maybe don´t have the brain for thinking about it and don´t understand many aspects we´re talking here about. Once again the discussion earlier craftmen vs. theorist. You´re obviously on the practical side and don´t like theory. No problem, but what do you want in this thread here then? Making trouble. When feeling bored find another hobby.
> It is absolutely not necessary being able to hand file a chain. If you go to the woods with enough chains. Two are enough for me, maybe not for anybody. It is advisable that you can hand file a chain of course.
> Nice thinking, making a chain grinder feel like he is 'cheating'. Only hand filing is the one and only true method. I´m 100% sure that many hand filed chains have way less performance than a machine grinded chain. Of course with much experience a hand filed chain CAN outperform a machine grinded one, but for a beginner in hand filing I would bet on the machine grinded one...
> And: being able to hand file a chain has no direct relation to being able to make a suitable raker depth gauge. It even isn´t necessary to have experience with a chainsaw. We´re talking here about 'how to achieve a suitable rather constant cutting angle'. Theory and discussion how to realize this theory practically.
> ...


I can chime in to a thread here anytime i want to address your mumbo jumbo and i was adding to your discussion. The more you talk the more your methods sound out of touch with the practical real world. 

You should forget about rakers for a bit and actually learn how to sharpen a chain in the field. A sharp cutter is way more important then a slightly out of spec raker.


----------



## Philbert (May 13, 2018)

Westboastfaller said:


> . . . if it were to rest on two high cutters and you have a short one then you get a high raker. As well the reverse scenario would get you a low raker.
> The DAF obvious will keep the cutting angle but will only be as good as the teeth are even.
> I would have to assume it could be time consuming and certainly a shop tool. One mans opinion. Great and inexpensive little tool though.


Yeah, the digital tire gauge (assuming that it is accurate) is just a way to measure the height offset, not to tell anyone what to do. Could be set up with an offset base to measure this on individual teeth, ignoring adjacent teeth.

The fixed offset / saddle gauges are 'go/no-go'; these let you measure numbers a bit easier than using a straight edge and feeler gauges, as was mentioned in a earlier post. Also another way to collect 'before and after' data.



Westboastfaller said:


> It should be done on a horizontal flat as illustrated. If its a large bar with a deep belly where we have the "up the hill, down the hill" effect, I would still consider that a horizontal flat. . . . Compensations for species, angles, power, felling dogs, as well ones with greater size and differently designed, will need to be ironed out with the chain file in the field.



Yeah (again). If measuring to tenths of a degree, the precision of the whole system is important. If just 'eyeballing' one part . . . .

The determination of what is 'level' (baseline, reference, whatever) is critical. Is it the centerline through the rivets or the outside edge? Are the rivets even uniform in diameter at that level of precision? Is it the bottom of the cutter / tie strap? Worn or new tie straps? These things can be controlled in a laboratory setting, or with a machinist's QA instruments. When referencing off the rivet of an adjacent tie strap, the curve of a bar could be important. 

The definitions of 'precision', ' accuracy', and 'practical' come to mind. It is fine as a theoretical discussion / exploration, but must be considered in the larger context of 'sharpening'.

Philbert


----------



## hannes69 (May 13, 2018)

Modifiedmark said:


> I can chime in to a thread here anytime i want to address your mumbo jumbo and i was adding to your discussion.


Surely you can chime in and say something. Freedom of speech as I already mentioned. You´re adding something to the discussion - only doubtful if it is very useful in the sense of the topic here.



Modifiedmark said:


> You should forget about rakers for a bit and actually learn how to sharpen a chain in the field. A sharp cutter is way more important then a slightly out of spec raker.


You´re seeing some contradictions here where actually aren´t any. When e.g. talking about cutting speed, there are several influences. Your saw, horsepower, torque, fuel type, chain type, the chainsaw user, the sharpening, the raker,... This thread deals with ONE of them. Nobody says, that the mentioned aspect here is the only one or the most important one. There are many threads out there dealing with sharpening. This thread here is specialized regarding raker filing (and mainly deals with raker depth and not with other aspects like raker shape). When getting deep into one aspect of a story, this doesn´t mean it is the central point of the story.
I see absolutely no problem when you say 'sharpening is way more important than raker depth when thinking about cutting speed'.
Development for many things goes on and on. There was a time where raker depth gauges didn´t exist. So eyeballing, maybe counting file strokes. Then constant raker depth gauges. Kind of progress I´d say. Then the FOP and other progressive approaches from different manufacturers. Another progress. When having a close view you see some room for improvement of the given solutions. Or maybe someone simply likes to produce selfmade tools and make use of them. And so the story continues. That´s evolution.
We´re living in a world, where you don´t make permantly inventions like a car, a motor, a wheel, a plane, a rocket, a computer. Now we have smaller steps.
I don´t know exactly the problem with having coexistant solutions or opinions. It´s ok that you personally think that raker depth is a more or less neglectable aspect in cutting performance. But out of this personal subjective opinion there´s no need to make others believe that a better raker depth gauge is crap or whole of this thread is mumbo jumbo.
It´s interesting that many people like to make decisions for others. I SHOULD forget about rakers and learn hand filing instead? You SHOULD forget about sharpening and only concentrate on raker filing? Probably I SHOULD NOT waste my time with this sort of discussions


----------



## HarleyT (May 13, 2018)

It is starting to get good now.....


----------



## hannes69 (May 13, 2018)

Philbert said:


> Have you guys taken into account the curvature of the bar (where the angle is measured, and the various positions where different cutters cut) when making these caclulations?


I have not. For 3/8 chain the distance between one end of the cutter to the other end of the adjacent tie strap is 1.5". That´s the relevant length regrding the raker depth gauge tool. Within 1.5 inches the bar can be considered straight I think.


----------



## hannes69 (May 13, 2018)

HarleyT said:


> It is starting to get good now.....


Of course you´re thinking like that. Because you´re now not the only one that gets his come-uppance.


----------



## HarleyT (May 13, 2018)

Lol.. Come-uppance??

Like not getting anal-ly wound up in some obscure facet in proper chain sharpening?

What is your goal here? That you will recruit an army of morons that will devote hours into making a tool that is absolutely "not" needed?


----------



## HarleyT (May 13, 2018)

Folks here "use" chainsaws....


----------



## Modifiedmark (May 13, 2018)

hannes69 said:


> Development for many things goes on and on. There was a time where raker depth gauges didn´t exist. So eyeballing, maybe counting file strokes. Then constant raker depth gauges. Kind of progress I´d say.



Your profile says your 41 years old, I will tell you that raker gauges have been in existence for much longer then you have been on the face of the earth. Shortly after the first cutter chains in fact. 


Your quote's

"Your thinking, your attitude, your problem. You don´t have to trust in my methods. As your credibillity is gone, it´s the best approach for you to make yourself gone as well in this thread." 

"To all people out there thinking about the topic here 'mumbo jumbo': Fell free thinking this way, but PLEASE stay out of this thread then, it won´t help anybody to chime in to just say 'what a piece of crap are you making here'."

You see it's your way or the highway right? Wrong. When you post on a open forum asking for input, you better be ready to take it all, not just what suits your agenda. 

I think your whole "software" idea while novel as it may be, is really a bunch of baloney. Your improving the file o plate? Yeah ok, your smarter then all the chain companies that have invested countless millions over how many freaking years? 

If your so sure of your idea, patent it, produce it and sell it. See how that goes..


----------



## HarleyT (May 13, 2018)

While us nay-sayers are cowering in the corner, now that you have properly put us in our place,
if someone brought you a handfull of chains to sharpen, could you get the job done within the span of a day or two?


----------



## JimM (May 13, 2018)

After nearly three weeks, I find it telling that no one has actually chimed in, and said, hey I made one myself. Not even the supporters.


----------



## hannes69 (May 13, 2018)

Modifiedmark said:


> When you post on a open forum asking for input, you better be ready to take it all, not just what suits your agenda.


Feel free. You can have an opinion different from mine and you can post it exactly in this thread here if you like to. If this helps anybody here is questionable. You can open a poll if you´re feeling bored and ask 'is this thread useful or not?'. Yes, we can collect our opinions.



Modifiedmark said:


> Yeah ok, your smarter then all the chain companies that have invested countless millions over how many freaking years?


Chain manufacturers definetly have invested countless millions in developing chains. Have they invested countless millions in developing a raker depth gauge? I think you know the answer.



Modifiedmark said:


> If your so sure of your idea, patent it, produce it and sell it. See how that goes..


No. Why should I? I earn my money otherwise, this is a simple freetime project. I´m not after making money with such ideas. I have no clue about patents. The first post in this thread contains whole of the approach here. I made some intersting findings, I made a piece of software, I made some photos. I´m playing with a simple CAD program making some drawings, playing with numbers, doing some thinking and discussions. 
That´s all, nothing more. 

I don´t know why you are assuming that you PERSONALLY have to believe me something or you have to make this damn raker depth gauge yourself. 
You can skip this and live a happy life without all of the things mentioned in this thread.


----------



## Modifiedmark (May 13, 2018)

hannes69 said:


> I have not. For 3/8 chain the distance between one end of the cutter to the other end of the adjacent tie strap is 1.5". That´s the relevant length regrding the raker depth gauge tool. Within 1.5 inches the bar can be considered straight I think.



Really? You think it can be considered straight? 

With all your precise mumbo jumbo you think you can ignore the curvature of the bar?

Even us dummies who do it the old fashioned way know to pick out the flat part of the bar to set the rakers on. 

Since your a rookie chain sharpener who can only use a chain grinding machine, why not set the raker depth on your machine?


----------



## Modifiedmark (May 13, 2018)

hannes69 said:


> Chain manufacturers definetly have invested countless millions in developing chains. Have they invested countless millions in developing a raker depth gauge? I think you know the answer.



Your right I do believe I know that answer. The chain companies know that setting raker depths is not rocket science, no need to invest millions on research and development, there money is better spent elsewhere. But never mind me, you go ahead with your software program and make yourself feel better while the guys in the know are busy cutting wood..


----------



## Modifiedmark (May 13, 2018)

hannes69 said:


> The first post in this thread contains whole of the approach here.



Your first post here was so long and full of BS I didn't bother to read it. I could smell a clunker right off the bat.

On the other hand, you should be in the running for the longest first post award.


----------



## hannes69 (May 13, 2018)

JimM said:


> After nearly three weeks, I find it telling that no one has actually chimed in, and said, hey I made one myself. Not even the supporters.


Quite surprising, yes. People can chime in and critisize, people can make many words, people can´t use an angle-grinder and make that thing. 
Seriously: I´m not surprised. I´m very well aware of the fact, that most people in this world prefer 'given' solutions. Many don´t have the time to make things yourself, many don´t have the right tools, manydon´t have the knowledge and experience, many simply aren´t intersted and don´t like to. The same story like me and hand filing a chain: I go the easy way here and use an electrical grinder. 
This thread is addressed to people that like tinkering and are on the DIY path. I´m not after a mass phenomenon. The 'success' of this thread is not measured in selling units for me. 
As I already mentioned several times: You can make anything out of this thread. I have already my raker depth gauge and it works for me. You can ignore this thread. You can make this depth gauge or not. You can make a patent and sell the idea. Do whatever you want. And skip those false assumptions about my person. I´m spending part of my free time here and discuss some things, nothing more.
Like some people like to spend part of their freetime and act like a turd in the punch bowl. 
You like to see some problems in this thread? Do so. I don´t see any. Because there aren´t any.


----------



## hannes69 (May 13, 2018)

Modifiedmark said:


> Even us dummies who do it the old fashioned way know to pick out the flat part of the bar to set the rakers on.


Come on. We don´t have to discuss things that are self explanatory. Do we really have to discuss, that the bar´s nose is not the right place to file rakers?


----------



## PogoInTheWoods (May 13, 2018)

Speaking of turds, it's a well known fact that you can't polish em. So why argue with em?


----------



## hannes69 (May 13, 2018)

Modifiedmark said:


> Your right I do believe I know that answer. The chain companies know that setting raker depths is not rocket science, no need to invest millions on research and development, there money is better spent elsewhere. But never mind me, you go ahead with your software program and make yourself feel better while the guys in the know are busy cutting wood..


Yeah, I invested <10 dollars, you´re right, no millions needed. 
'the guys in the know are busy cutting wood? So what exactly are you doing here now? Why are you involved in silly discussions instead of cutting wood? Not a guy in the know?



Modifiedmark said:


> Your first post here was so long and full of BS I didn't bother to read it. I could smell a clunker right off the bat.


Hm. Maybe got a strong head ache between line 2 and 3 because of overloading your brain? Yes, in this position it´s quite easy to qualify someone´s ideas as BS. 

Time to get the popcorn


----------



## HarleyT (May 13, 2018)

2 teams!!

Turds vs. Anal Warriors!!!


----------



## Modifiedmark (May 13, 2018)

PogoInTheWoods said:


> Speaking of turds, it's a well known fact that you can't polish em. So why argue with em?


Speaking of turds, glad you could show up. Maybe you could take this guy over to chainsaw repair and let him loose there?


----------



## hannes69 (May 13, 2018)

> Speaking of turds, it's a well known fact that you can't polish em. So why argue with em?


Having time and the entertainment factor. It´s as simple like that.


----------



## HarleyT (May 13, 2018)

Yes, toying with stupid americans has long been a hobby,
eh??


----------



## hannes69 (May 13, 2018)

HarleyT said:


> 2 teams!!
> 
> Turds vs. Anal Warriors!!!



That was a good one, one point for you


----------



## hannes69 (May 13, 2018)

HarleyT said:


> Yes, toying with stupid americans has long been a hobby,
> eh??


This one doesn´t work out, I don´t know if you´re a stupid American or a stupid inhabitant of another country, internet is anonymous...  Just kidding.


----------



## JimM (May 13, 2018)

hannes69 said:


> Quite surprising, yes. People can chime in and critisize, people can make many words, people can´t use an angle-grinder and make that thing.
> Seriously: I´m not surprised. I´m very well aware of the fact, that most people in this world prefer 'given' solutions. Many don´t have the time to make things yourself, many don´t have the right tools, manydon´t have the knowledge and experience, many simply aren´t intersted and don´t like to. The same story like me and hand filing a chain: I go the easy way here and use an electrical grinder.
> This thread is addressed to people that like tinkering and are on the DIY path. I´m not after a mass phenomenon. The 'success' of this thread is not measured in selling units for me.
> As I already mentioned several times: You can make anything out of this thread. I have already my raker depth gauge and it works for me. You can ignore this thread. You can make this depth gauge or not. You can make a patent and sell the idea. Do whatever you want. And skip those false assumptions about my person. I´m spending part of my free time here and discuss some things, nothing more.
> ...


Just making an observation. Was it not what you wanted to see?


----------



## PogoInTheWoods (May 13, 2018)

Modifiedmark said:


> Speaking of turds, glad you could show up. Maybe you could take this guy over to chainsaw repair and let him loose there?



Been there once and felt like I was gonna have a seizure. LOL And fwiw, (and if you would have read more of this thread), I pretty much took your position myself..., just with a more productive approach to identifying the differences between the lab and the real world when it comes to chain maintenance and how different folks and different situations require different solutions.

I happen to get both sides of the discussion. I free hand file and use a grinder.., and a progressive style raker gauge because they work better over the life of the tooth than the fixed gauges.

Guess that makes me a taint..., or maybe a laxative.


----------



## JimM (May 13, 2018)

PogoInTheWoods said:


> Been there once and felt like I was gonna have a seizure. LOL And fwiw, (and if you would have read more of this thread), I pretty much took your position myself..., just with a more productive approach to identifying the differences between the lab and the real world when it comes to chain maintenance and how different folks and different situations require different solutions.
> 
> I happen to get both sides of the discussion. I free hand file and use a grinder.., and a progressive style raker gauge because they work better over the life of the tooth than the fixed gauges.
> 
> Guess that makes me a taint..., or maybe a laxative.


Actually, I, myself have appreciated your input in this thread. FWIW.


----------



## hannes69 (May 13, 2018)

JimM said:


> Just making an observation. Was it not what you wanted to see?


Of course. It´s my wish to see people making some DIY stuff. But obviously I´m not in the position to force someone. So...
Every idea is an experiment. You don´t know the result before. 
I still don´t know what happens next. 
Maybe development continues, maybe it stalls.
Maybe constructive discussions, maybe some turd discussions. Who knows.
Because I don´t (have to) earn money with this, it isn´t really serious stuff. Nothing depends on it.
It´s a chance for developing something, the chance can be used or missed. That is not up to me.


----------



## Modifiedmark (May 13, 2018)

PogoInTheWoods said:


> Been there once and felt like I was gonna have a seizure. LOL And fwiw, (and if you would have read more of this thread), I pretty much took your position myself..., just with a more productive approach to identifying the differences between the lab and the real world when it comes to chain maintenance and how different folks and different situations require different solutions.
> 
> I happen to get both sides of the discussion. I free hand file and use a grinder.., and a progressive style raker gauge because they work better over the life of the tooth than the fixed gauges.
> 
> Guess that makes me a taint..., or maybe a laxative.



Oh I did read all of it. Just skimmed though the boring stuff though.


----------



## PogoInTheWoods (May 13, 2018)

JimM said:


> Actually, I, myself have appreciated your input in this thread. FWIW.



Thank you. I've simply tried to keep a grounded position while also trying to learn just enough to appreciate the time and effort put into 'the chance' for me to either take it or leave it.


----------



## Westboastfaller (May 14, 2018)

Modifiedmark said:


> but then come and say you don't/can't file a chain by hand? Seriously?
> 
> You cut wood all day with just two chains and never touch them up so your cutting half your time with less then sharp chains and your preaching on rakers?


Its a prerequisite to know how to file a saw here or even own one or they are not worthy..
You believe all the engineers that designed all the chain and saws you've ever owned know how to run one as well hand file a chain... lol
This is a 'mathamatical solution' here, (for lack of better words)
not who can hand file 'smashed cutter'.
There is a lot of people that have been cutting for many many years and without an ounce of theory. They are nothing but hacks and always will be.
He's covered with the grinder and its obvious to me he is with his raker maintenance. As long as he doesn't run dull, as well, he keeps sprockets and guides fresh and uses good bars and flips them on the next grind and uses rail pullers then he will keep going forward and an "experienced cutter" ,(reference below) in your weak perspective, that go to the bush with ONE CHAIN, will keep going back.
And that's a fact Jack.

Moreover:
And where do you get off making assumptions on how long a chain lasts all around this planet anyhow?

On the coast you can often cut all day if you keep the chain on and don't hit sand in the moss with cutting old blow down.

I know a little bit about cutting pine in Canada anyways.
"Fall & Burn for 12 winters through the height of the largest beetle epidemic known to man...from the west side of British Columbia, up and down each side of the Rockies and chased then dam near to the Saskatchewan.

There was times companies didn't have enough Fallers or good saw hands even so I would get payed per tree to fall and buck
How 'bout I can cut fall,limb and buck three trees an hour 24" × 6" × 100ft
15" syndical average over length
That makes eack cut a sq ft
average × 40+ cuts

Your looking at 1000sq ft per day and limbs without filing if all goes well.
That's Limbed so the green blocks can be stacked tight to burn. 33ft×30ft

"He spends half the time running dull" ?

That's funny^^ just pulling **** out of your arss.






Modifiedmark said:


> Experienced cutters can go to the woods with one chain, a round file with a handle and a flat file and will cut circles around your machine sharpened chains.


And many people can cut circles around many others that also hand file. Having and doing everything right at first is the most important.

There is many young guys now that broke into some of the most challenging and dangerous timber cutting on this planet and couldn't hand file to save their lives.

They did the Fallers course and they start getting taught to set up a square grinder the first night and flip there bars and all the high level stuff it takes. Supervisors. would prefer that scenario. It makes a lot of things a lot easier. The success rate would be much better as it makes a lot of things simple.
Hand filing is a lost art in PNW production cutting and
Its about unheard of in the States at that level.




Modifiedmark said:


> Far as I'm concerned any credibility you might have had is gone.


 I don't really have to say it do I.


----------



## Westboastfaller (May 14, 2018)

Modifiedmark said:


> I think your whole "software" idea while novel as it may be, is really a bunch of baloney. Your improving the file o plate? Yeah ok, your smarter then all the chain companies that have invested countless millions over how many freaking years?


 Companies have this data.
Haha ...If he did approach them with the packaged produced then its quite possible "they" could buy him out and shelf it. (Pull "a Microsoft" and 'suppress technology') The longer the chain lasts the more chance it will fail. They don't want this. Now you have a bunch of customers complaining...And worse yet, longer lasting chain means what? In the eyes of a manufacturer?. Not good!

I guess you could have said the same thing about saw companies and saw porting. Kind of a parallel here, go figure. I imagine you would have if saw porting was new and broke on the internet.
Its really that surprising to you that there could be gains to be had. WOW.




Modifiedmark said:


> I can chime in to a thread here anytime i want to address your mumbo jumbo and i was adding to your discussion.
> 
> . A sharp cutter is way more important then a slightly out of spec raker.


 what does this have to do with the price of rice in China?

A left arm is better than a right foot..What?
Because you can't address or probably understand the topic so you want to try and muddy the waters I suppose.
Weak!



Modifiedmark said:


> If your so sure of your idea, patent it, produce it and sell it. See how that goes..


 patent it? And a company can make a slight change like sell it with out the bend.
Too many hacks anyways. If they use a gauge, its probably a saddle gauge from Taiwan, They are truely progressive, you just have to buy one with every chain.


----------



## Philbert (May 14, 2018)

Philbert


----------



## Modifiedmark (May 14, 2018)

Westboastfaller said:


> Companies have this data.
> Haha ...If he did approach them with the packaged produced then its quite possible "they" could buy him out and shelf it. (Pull "a Microsoft" and 'suppress technology') The longer the chain lasts the more chance it will fail. They don't want this. Now you have a bunch of customers complaining...And worse yet, longer lasting chain means what? In the eyes of a manufacturer?. Not good!
> 
> I guess you could have said the same thing about saw companies and saw porting. Kind of a parallel here, go figure. I image you would have if saw porting was new and broke on the internet.
> ...



Blab away, I don't care. I just consider the source and you were mostly the only one even buying into that crap. LOL


----------



## HarleyT (May 14, 2018)

Has anyone put up a pic of their tool, made from this "tutorial" yet?

Let's see it!!

I mean from the followers..... 

BTW.........




And who supplied the rubber bands?


----------



## HarleyT (May 14, 2018)

2 main "disciples".......

Let us see their tools!!!!

"Whip em' out"!!!!!!!


----------



## KiwiBro (May 14, 2018)

Two files and real-world skill will keep that chain cutting well and is arguably the best method. No need for a raker depth gauge, digital angle finder, etc. Instant feedback from the chain on the bar so easy to make small filing adjustments and gauge how the chain responds.

But, I hate having to bring a rocked chain back to life with a hand file, cue the grinder. I guess if I had more of that aforementioned real-world skill I wouldn't be rocking chains in the first place.


----------



## hannes69 (May 14, 2018)

Aaah, show time, the turd team already entered the field 
For myself being a chainsaw rookie it is maybe understandable that I find some time for forum´s discussions, but the pros here capable of hand chain sharpening, countless years in the wood and without the need of helping tools should really be in the forest and make use of their capabilities instead of discussing with rookies. 
On the other side it´s an honour for me that you find it way more important to entertain me than earning your money by using your real skills.
Thank you !
So this thread comes to new dimensions, not only dealing with serious stuff on one side, but dealing with turd material for entertainment in between that delivers some relaxation. A good balance. So there dosen´t come up the danger that my brain will overheat with all the numbers and thinking, some jokes here and there won´t mean a damage for anything.
Of course in the long run it is not fair to bind arboristsite´s server capacities only for turd stuff.


----------



## KiwiBro (May 14, 2018)

hannes69 said:


> Aaah, show time, the turd team already entered the field
> For myself being a chainsaw rookie it is maybe understandable that I find some time for forum´s discussions, but the pros here capable of hand chain sharpening, countless years in the wood and without the need of helping tools should really be in the forest and make use of their capabilities instead of discussing with rookies.


C'mon man. Put your ego back on the shelf and start appreciating the learning opportunities being freely presented to us rookies by experienced people who have been there done that and survived long enough to come back and help teach the rest of us. I came later in life to chainsaws, going from being on top of my game in a different field to grovelling with the rest of the rookies, making and still making stoopid mistakes and learning. There's heaps to be learned on this forum, if we are willing to learn it.


----------



## hannes69 (May 14, 2018)

Westboastfaller said:


> There is a lot of people that have been cutting for many many years and without an ounce of theory. They are nothing but hacks and always will be.


Sometimes the language barrier shows up. 'Hack' seems to be a word with many different meanings. The online dictionary delivers e.g. 'worn-out horse', I´m not so sure if you meant that or something else


----------



## HarleyT (May 14, 2018)

hannes69 said:


> Aaah, show time, the turd team already entered the field
> For myself being a chainsaw rookie it is maybe understandable that I find some time for forum´s discussions, but the pros here capable of hand chain sharpening, countless years in the wood and without the need of helping tools should really be in the forest and make use of their capabilities instead of discussing with rookies.
> On the other side it´s an honour for me that you find it way more important to entertain me than earning your money by using your real skills.
> Thank you !
> ...



No, I usually just help folks here fix their chainsaws..

No, "tutorials".....


----------



## hannes69 (May 14, 2018)

KiwiBro said:


> C'mon man. Put your ego back on the shelf and start appreciating the learning opportunities being freely presented to us rookies by experienced people who have been there done that and survived long enough to come back and help teach the rest of us. I came later in life to chainsaws, going from being on top of my game in a different field to grovelling with the rest of the rookies, making and still making stoopid mistakes and learning. There's heaps to be learned on this forum, if we are willing to learn it.


That´s not an ego thing. I am myself on the VERY learning side. But I have to deal in some way with someone else´s ego problems here. There a several possibilities. Simply ignoring such things is one, but that´s too boring for me  So I try to make some fun out of it. 
There are several things to learn within this thread here, but what to learn is different for the crowd members here. I´m already learning many things here. Many things very different from what I thought I could learn here, but that´s ok, you can´t predict such things.


----------



## HarleyT (May 14, 2018)

OK. You expect one to "make" a gauge tool to adjust the rakers/depth gauges.
And the next loop, you expect them to fabricate another?


----------



## HarleyT (May 14, 2018)

Just as a start.


----------



## HarleyT (May 14, 2018)

Why would not anyone just use a "generic" depth gauge tool and go cut some wood?


----------



## HarleyT (May 14, 2018)

Start with that bleak reality...

Explain.

If the chain isn't aggressive enough,
then just get a different height gauge.....

Or whatever.....


----------



## JimM (May 14, 2018)

hannes69 said:


> That´s not an ego thing. I am myself on the VERY learning side. But I have to deal in some way with someone else´s ego problems here. There a several possibilities. Simply ignoring such things is one, but that´s too boring for me  So I try to make some fun out of it.
> There are several things to learn within this thread here, but what to learn is different for the crowd members here. I´m already learning many things here. Many things very different from what I thought I could learn here, but that´s ok, you can´t predict such things.


So, have you learned anything constructive about your premise, or merely about the folk you are dealing with?


----------



## HarleyT (May 14, 2018)

Getting overly wound up in "minutiae",

kind of goes against your arrogance from the start.....

Of course you will pick up a couple of followers that love to banter over measurement crap........


----------



## hannes69 (May 14, 2018)

KiwiBro said:


> Two files and real-world skill will keep that chain cutting well and is arguably the best method.No need for a raker file, digital angle finder, etc.


Arguably? Has that something to do with 'to argue' and 'arguments' ? I think so. What is so difficult to accept different opinions? You don´t need a raker file. Perfect. I say: No need for 'real world skills' when I can use a grinder and a raker depth gauge. What makes one opinion more 'right' than the other? Nothing. We are speaking of personal preference. 
When we want to find out something about preferences, we can all open here poll threads. You can simply ask 'Do you prefer hand / free techniques or machine / guided techniques when fiddling with your chains'. 
It doens´t make any sense to chime into a thread dealing with one of the two sides and simply argue 'I´m on the other side, I don´t like this approach'.
It would really never come to my mind to chime in to a hand filing thread and start strange discussions about the crap 'hand filing concept' and give arguments for my concept. 
I can open a list now and make markings who of you in this thread here likes manual techniques, who likes machine techniques, who likes both of them and who likes destroying anything that comes along the way. 
I can publish the list now or burn it up or whatever, it certainly has no purpose. 
You´re wasting your time here with such approaches (or you are here solely for entertainment purposes; then I wish an enjoyable show!)


----------



## hannes69 (May 14, 2018)

HarleyT said:


> kind of goes against your arrogance from the start.....


What arrogance 



HarleyT said:


> Of course you will pick up a couple of followers that love to banter over measurement crap........


I pick up many things here. I even pick up a real huge tile of turd that I can throw finally in my punch bowl. 
Feel assured that this thread is giving back more to me than to you, so I´ll never complain.


----------



## hannes69 (May 14, 2018)

HarleyT said:


> No, I usually just help folks here fix their chainsaws..


Read your sentence in the quote word by word, and do yourself a really huge favor and replace 'usually' by 'always'. I´m glad to hear that you´re actually here in the forum to help people. Sometimes there are really false impressions.


----------



## hannes69 (May 14, 2018)

HarleyT said:


> OK. You expect one to "make" a gauge tool to adjust the rakers/depth gauges.


No expectations on my side. I´m showing one of 100 different possibilities. Use it or take one of the remaining 99, your choice.



HarleyT said:


> Why would not anyone just use a "generic" depth gauge tool and go cut some wood?


Everyone can do exactly that. Why not?



HarleyT said:


> If the chain isn't aggressive enough,
> then just get a different height gauge.....


Sure. Why not?
The only important thing is that you are happy with YOUR choice. When you are happy, then there is absolutely NO NEED to think about alternatives.


----------



## HarleyT (May 14, 2018)

Yes.

We are kneeling at the altar of your "tutorial".....

Your goals/aims here are one of self worship......


----------



## hannes69 (May 14, 2018)

JimM said:


> So, have you learned anything constructive about your premise, or merely about the folk you are dealing with?


I have learned many things here. New vocabulary. Many things about the folk here, yes. Things about myself. Things about misunderstandings. Things about ignorance. Things about some brains´ boundaries. Things about being conservative and over critic. Things about differences in mentality.
And yes, there are some really good discussions with some forum members here dealing with technical aspects about my premise.
I think it´s all in a good balance and within the range you can expect.
Some principles are always the same since the beginning of mankind.
The part dealing with 'useful' things, constructive discussions and reasonable exchange has always been smaller than the large pile of turd.
It has obviously a reason that this planet has its current constitution, that doesn´t come from the overwhelming intelligence of mankind.


----------



## hannes69 (May 14, 2018)

HarleyT said:


> Your goals/aims here are one of self worship......


Congratulations! Did it really took that long to find out the truth?


----------



## JimM (May 14, 2018)

hannes69 said:


> I have learned many things here. New vocabulary. Many things about the folk here, yes. Things about myself. Things about misunderstandings. Things about ignorance. Things about some brains´ boundaries. Things about being conservative and over critic. Things about differences in mentality.
> And yes, there are some really good discussions with some forum members here dealing with technical aspects about my premise.
> I think it´s all in a good balance and within the range you can expect.
> Some principles are always the same since the beginning of mankind.
> ...


So what tier of intelligence might you place yourself in? You pick a number. One to ten? One to a hundred? Just for grins. You like fun, right?


----------



## HarleyT (May 14, 2018)

hannes69 said:


> Congratulations! Did it really took that long to find out the truth?


No, that was friggin' obvious from the "getgo"....


----------



## Stihl 041S (May 14, 2018)

Modifiedmark said:


> Oh I did read all of it. Just skimmed though the boring stuff though.


Every time I read your posts I hear Walter Brennan’s voice in my head.

One of the great character actors. 
I remember him at the beginning of “The Sons of Will Sonnet”

Walter Brennan’s character is the grandfather and traveling with his grandson. 
Someone says Will Sonnet was the fastest ever.
Walters character says.....”Third fastest.....my grandson is faster than his pa. And I’m faster than both of them......No brag, just fact”

Back to it guys.


----------



## KiwiBro (May 14, 2018)

hannes69 said:


> I am myself on the VERY learning side.


Calling people turds won't improve your learning opportunities.


----------



## hannes69 (May 15, 2018)

JimM said:


> So what tier of intelligence might you place yourself in? You pick a number. One to ten? One to a hundred? Just for grins. You like fun, right?


I like fun, yes  I see, main purpose here is not to talk about the thread´s topic, but dealing with many sidelines. And, very interesting, many of them have to do with my person. You really prefer talking directly about a chainsaw rookie and his personality instead of talking about chainsaw stuff? Absolutely ok, but maybe a psychologist´s forum would be a better place for such ideas.
But I try to answer most of the questions here coming up, regardless of being ontopic or not:
Your question can´t be answered the way you made it. There are many sorts of intelligence. Logical, emotional, social, empathic, practical, rhetorical,.... I would personally assume within my arrogance that in the field of logical intelligence I´m a certain amount over average. I have no assumptions regarding other fields, I don´t think there´s much of a need for such self-assessment 
So how do you consider your intelligence? We are all very interested in. You know, you certainly like fun as well, right?


----------



## hannes69 (May 15, 2018)

KiwiBro said:


> Calling people turds won't improve your learning opportunities.


No. 
I have learned to make differences in life, especially when dealing with people.
If someone is really a turd, then I call this person like that. A turd certainly isn´t willing to learn anything from me and in the reverse direction a turd is certainly not willing to teach me anything. 
On the other side there are some people who like to teach and learn something. 
You´ll find both groups mentioned within this thread. Both groups are rather small.
In between is the large mass that can be considered a sort of 'neutral'. Some opinion here and there, a little ontopic stuff, way more offtopic stuff, most of the time not willing to learn something, sometimes a shimmer of wanting to teach something. Tendency more willing to critisize things than accept them. More of the 'smalltalk type'. 'Let´s talk a little bit about it, but to be honest, I really don´t care.'
So what to say? One group is very suitable for the constructive part. That fits well into the thread´s topic. One group´s destiny is the destructive part. That´s the group you don´t gain anything useful directly, but you can have very very much fun with it when willing to play on its offered field of destruction. The last group is not so well defined and a little bit more inhomogenous. When in the right mood, one could try to gain something in this field. That would maybe require an attitude that is built up upon patience, goodwill and the will to often powder the ass (formulated drastically). There I have some difficulties, yes. I´m more of the type 'you are already interested in this topic here, know something of it, share already some opinions, are already motivated, willing to learn something, like to cooperate and want some useful exchange'. I don´t consider it my job to build that up for somebody - it is already the case - or not. 
That´s what I said already many times, if someone is not interested, doesn´t care, doesn´t want to participate in a positive manner, stay away from this thread and try your luck elsewhere. 

And beside all that: Concerning the very topic of this thread, there´s surely more the community can learn from me than the other way round. Yes, this is possible. I am a chainsaw rookie, I can´t hand file a chain and parallely I know more about the 'cutting angle' and raker depth gauges than many others here. Because I have specialized in this topic by chance.
And all the other learning possibilities in this forum can´t be blocked from me personally, internet is open for everybody. I have learned many many things in this forum here already and this process will continue. 

BTW I´m well aware of some human and psychological principles. If the same thread here would be opened and presented by a 60 year old US guy (or at least native English speaking country) with 40 years of professional experience, a mouth not too big, not too arrogant and more on the practical side of things using more colloquial language, there certainly would be a dynamic differing from the one here. But sadly sadly not everything in life allows "make a wish".


----------



## Westboastfaller (May 15, 2018)

hannes69 said:


> Sometimes the language barrier shows up. 'Hack' seems to be a word with many different meanings. The online dictionary delivers e.g. 'worn-out horse', I´m not so sure if you meant that or something else


Even if its a Hack ....you never look a gift horse in the mouth...OK? Not in America anyway. It can be very hot and a long walk out of the Canyon. Don't ask me how I know this.

Ok... No, that's an old Western description.

The metaphor I just used...."Don't look a gift horse in the mouth is an expression here that one may say to someone else about someone that just helped them out.
They did something for them or gave them something but it was less than perfect circumstances or the physical integrity was in question.

Origin: A Horse (or people) can/will have a presence of long teeth as the gums will retreat with age. Simply you didn't 'look the gift horse in the mouth' as it would be an insult.
We say he/she is getting long in the tooth also. Not usually to their face though...lol

Europe is familiar with the UK English expressions so in this case that would make the Cowboy the Hack ..Meaning a bad tradesman/ 'tradesman'
Hack: carelessly chop, cut into pieces opposed to precision.

We may also say a Butcher. Call me a Surgeon then that's a complement, call be a Butcher? Not so much..lol


----------



## Stihl 041S (May 15, 2018)

hannes69 said:


> No.
> I have learned to make differences in life, especially when dealing with people.
> If someone is really a turd, then I call this person like that. A turd certainly isn´t willing to learn anything from me and in the reverse direction a turd is certainly not willing to teach me anything.
> On the other side there are some people who like to teach and learn something.
> ...


“I know more about cutting angle and raker depth gauges than anyone here”........heck of a statement. 
And MAY be true. If you do you have and you came here to see how that fits in that’s good. 
But look at the importance of what you bring and accept it. 
But also look at how important what you buying in is worth. 
If your gauge is 500% better but what it is improving is .5% of the entire cutting process......how far do you obsess......

It seems like it would fit more in a production shop. Where the same chain was cutting the same type of trees with the same saws. 

Most of the pro guys here are using years of knowledge when they hit the rakers. 

It seems like a treatise on “seat of the pants” rules of raker filing would be nice. 

If the same time was spent on the throttle instead of making “enth degree” gauge that more wood would be cut. 

How are you testing your theory on gauge depth? And what controls are you using in your testing? In relating to all the other cutting angles for starters. 

Not arguing. Just wondering.


----------



## hannes69 (May 15, 2018)

Westboastfaller said:


> you never look a gift horse in the mouth


Aah, ok, we use this saying in Germany as well in direct translation 



Westboastfaller said:


> Hack: carelessly chop, cut into pieces opposed to precision.


Ok, now I understand, you consider some of the felling guys a kind of 'raw' maybe?


----------



## Westboastfaller (May 15, 2018)

HarleyT said:


> Wouldn't you have to make a gauge for each brand of chain?





HarleyT said:


> Or one for each model chain in each brand?





HarleyT said:


> Why not use one like this?
> View attachment 647712







HarleyT said:


> But yes, I applaud the effort so far.





HarleyT said:


> Freaks huh???......
> 
> What are you tryin' to say???





HarleyT said:


> I am well known as a "freak" in the bedroom....
> 
> But not in the chainsaw shops......





HarleyT said:


> I was about to say "P"?
> You do a quick edit, sir!!





HarleyT said:


> Derail is kinda my thing......





HarleyT said:


> However, I think the politeness just ended.





HarleyT said:


> .





HarleyT said:


> OK, yes. I only speak for myself.
> 
> Let the history continue....





HarleyT said:


> Another "floater"!!!





HarleyT said:


> Ouch....





HarleyT said:


> And have the poster not use the "language barrier" as a quick easy way out of responding to questions.





HarleyT said:


> But hey, we are a big pile of "TURDS".....





HarleyT said:


> I showed a couple of examples of chain, that would cause some problems for the gauge to work.
> 
> But they were dismissed immediately. I saw no response to my questions.





HarleyT said:


> Unless one purchased a case of identical loops at one time. Which is absurd.





HarleyT said:


> Lots of questions have popped up.
> 
> Have at it.......





HarleyT said:


> Well, Hoosiers.......





HarleyT said:


> No worries.
> We here in Ky., well we miss Bobby Knight.





HarleyT said:


> He should be our next Secretary of State....





HarleyT said:


> Lol...
> 
> Exactly!!!!





HarleyT said:


> That type of "arrogance" is what we tend to resist...
> 
> Just as a nation of misfits.....





HarleyT said:


> Kind of why we elected a "rude" leader.....





HarleyT said:


> Well, I am sure that he is.
> 
> Speaking as a turd.....





HarleyT said:


> Lol, so you have no vids of your "work"? Just make references to Stihl's vids?
> 
> I/We would like to see a vid of your "gauges" being used. Not an imaginary image "derived" after watching a vid from Stihl's site.
> So the gauge will rest on the shoulders of the rivet?
> ...





HarleyT said:


> Yeah "learned" my arse.





HarleyT said:


> Sorry, I use a shotgun when in a fight....
> Lots of farkers may take a pellet.





HarleyT said:


> Arrogance.
> 
> That is the difference....





HarleyT said:


> View attachment 648764





HarleyT said:


> Questions are not "criticism", in any country.





HarleyT said:


> All of life can be explained in "plain geometry".
> 
> But it will not serve any practical purposes.





HarleyT said:


> So the buyable gauges are bad, why?
> 
> They ride on the top/front of the chisel, and set the height of the depth gauge.





HarleyT said:


> Respond to "1" of my questions,
> please.





HarleyT said:


> I joke around.
> But I do make a point from time to time.
> 
> Show one pic of a chain that you have sharpened. Then a pic of one of your gauges on this chain.





HarleyT said:


> Your gauge on a new chain doesn't count.





HarleyT said:


> Yes, I am a little "Rock'n'Roll"
> 
> View attachment 649296





HarleyT said:


> Here.....






HarleyT said:


> whatever....





HarleyT said:


> Well up untill now....





HarleyT said:


> Can anyone translate?





HarleyT said:


> Is that OK?








HarleyT said:


> What about bananas?





HarleyT said:


> I .





HarleyT said:


> Just from an old guy that has sharpened a lot of chains....





HarleyT said:


> .





HarleyT said:


> A progressive raker gauge? Like any one of those shown earlier? Why are they all different?View attachment 649307





HarleyT said:


> So these gauges are only for the chains worth sharpening? Eh?





HarleyT said:


> So your gauges are the same as the O.P.s?
> 
> I thought his were much/more/betterer!!!





HarleyT said:


> And, no. I will not go out to the shop and take pics of chains....
> 
> 
> 
> ...







That's as many as I can fit..wow


----------



## hannes69 (May 15, 2018)

Stihl 041S said:


> “I know more about cutting angle and raker depth gauges than anyone here”........heck of a statement.


Please don´t change quotes in a sense that fits more to your position! The quote is "[...] I know more about the 'cutting angle' and raker depth gauges than many others here.". It is formulated exactly like that by purpose. I know something about this topic, I consider that this is maybe more thany many here know, I assume that there is a certain amount of people here that knows equally or more than me about this topic. I´m not the master of raker filing, I only have specialized a little bit on it, nothing more.



Stihl 041S said:


> If your gauge is 500% better but what it is improving is .5% of the entire cutting process......how far do you obsess......


My point in this thread here is definitely not: "I have developed a new raker depth gauge which outperforms all existing ones by miles". No.
My point is, like the thread´s title suggests already: "You can make your own raker depth gauge if you like to. A piece of software and this thread may help you with this process". In the starting post then several advantages of this approach are mentioned. During the thread here and there you´ll find some numbers, showing that one type has a better performance than the other type at some points. That aspect is not the real topic here. 
Type 2 gauge has slightly better numbers, the huge advantage is that it is way easier to produce than type 1. And it has disadvantages, all mentioned in this thread already.
Maybe you personally see ONLY disadvantages in making your own gauge or in whole of my approach. That´s fine. But what´s your point then reading this thread or even writing in it? I don´t sign to bakery forums in order to read threads there and write in some of them: "I don´t understand all the hype here, I don´t like baking cakes, Walmart offers the best cakes ever, why bake your own?"
Noone ever assumes that every person on this planet likes to tinker, make things on your own or tries to find better solutions than the given ones. But why blame the people who are on that path? I really don´t blame anyone for anything, if a guy buys a saddle type depth gauge and uses that or doesn´t use a helping tool at all, no problem. Preferences. And maybe abilities and experience. I can´t make a sharp and well working chain out of a dull one without helping tools like a grinder and a depth gauge. That´s the way for me, noone says that this is the case for everyone.



Stihl 041S said:


> How are you testing your theory on gauge depth? And what controls are you using in your testing? In relating to all the other cutting angles for starters.


It´s not MY theory. It´s an empirical thing. BobL describes this in way better words in his thread than I am capable of. Many people share the experience that a constant cutting angle maintains the chain´s cutting performance through its life. You can achieve this constant angle with several methods, a DAF, manual measurement with a caliper, you can use a progressive depth gauge and can achieve rather constant angles. I consider the 'constant cutting angle' approach as a given. I don´t start with the big bang. I start with BobL´s thread as a given basis that I personally don´t question.
My personal testing / experience: I made some small tests with varying raker depths, yes. I tried cutting soft wood and hard wood, normal wood in the summer and frozen wood in the winter. I tried cutting lengthwise to the wood with a 'normal' chain (30° angle). I did this jobs with high and very low rakers. And simply FELT the differences. Especially when working in the 'edge area' when using extreme cutting angles with very hard wood e.g.
So the chain went through like butter or very roughly, there were differences in speed, the handling and so on. 
For me it is not debatable that a chain (freshly sharpened) at its end of life point with the default raker depth of 25 mil has IRONIC MODE ON a little bit IRONIC MODE OFF less performance than a chain with the maintained cutting angle corresponding to the initial value of raker depth. 
I have no personal theory in this matter. And I don´t make field studies or tests under laboratory conditions if you´re aiming to that direction. That would maybe a point when producing and selling something, but not when doing 'mumbo jumbo' (seeing posts above) in my free time 

---------------------
It seems to be a hobby of some of you guys here to find in an acribic way the piece of rope within my arguments to hang me. If you consider me being a turd as well, you could skip this effort and say that in a more directly manner. No need to analyze all of my words.


----------



## Westboastfaller (May 15, 2018)

There wasn't enough room for my answer I guess, its in there though, you can be assumed.
I had to cut some 'messages' here^^ ..er...um...I mean words


----------



## hannes69 (May 15, 2018)

> Hannes, song parody or " Blowin' in the wind
> 
> 
> Howwww, many times must a Faller look up
> ...



Nice song 
And in the domain of art there´s always room for interpretation... Let´s see what we detect in this song


----------



## Westboastfaller (May 15, 2018)

parody for "Blowin' in the wind


Howwww, many times must a Faller look up
...before he can read in the sky?

How many pages will this thread turn over
..before... someone.. gives it a tryyyyy?

And How many ears must a slow man have
..before he can hearrrrr.. its a lie.?

And howwww ...many ...questions, will a non-interested man have,
..or is it..
he's just getin' hiiigh?

The Answers
...I send
Have been blowin' in the wind
Yes the answers are blowin' in the wind


----------



## Stihl 041S (May 15, 2018)

Westboastfaller said:


> That's as many as I can fit..wow


Wow!!!!
Quote -Post of the year!!!!


----------



## PogoInTheWoods (May 15, 2018)

Talk about coming off the rails..., sheesh. 

Back to some saw chain and depth gauge tool reality. And this guy would make one of Hannes's tools in a heartbeat if he could ever get past page 1 here.

​


----------



## Stihl 041S (May 15, 2018)

hannes69 said:


> Please don´t change quotes in a sense that fits more to your position! The quote is "[...] I know more about the 'cutting angle' and raker depth gauges than many others here.". It is formulated exactly like that by purpose. I know something about this topic, I consider that this is maybe more thany many here know, I assume that there is a certain amount of people here that knows equally or more than me about this topic. I´m not the master of raker filing, I only have specialized a little bit on it, nothing more.
> 
> 
> My point in this thread here is definitely not: "I have developed a new raker depth gauge which outperforms all existing ones by miles". No.
> ...


My bad. As many here.......I was wrong.


----------



## Westboastfaller (May 15, 2018)

Stihl 041S said:


> My bad. As many here.......I was wrong.


 'Your just gonA fit right on in around these here parts...

That just sounds so wrong.. Haha


----------



## HarleyT (May 15, 2018)

Anyone make a tool yet?


----------



## HarleyT (May 15, 2018)

Please use a good quality rubber band...
Not that cheap german crap!!


----------



## HarleyT (May 15, 2018)




----------



## HarleyT (May 15, 2018)

Westboastfaller said:


> That's as many as I can fit..wow



I might need an "EPO"...
{Emergency Protective Order}


----------



## HarleyT (May 15, 2018)

Any LEOs here?


----------



## PogoInTheWoods (May 15, 2018)

How 'bout a Capricarious?

Honestly? If I had some material even remotely close to the thickness in all these calculations I'd make one..., or a couple. Maybe shim stock? Or maybe even some of the heavier metal pallet strapping would be strong enough? Wouldn't be overly concerned about all the anal precision, but more about how easy it actually is to make compared to how well it works for my approach to chain maintenance. A Dremel or die grinder and a file along with a couple measurements should be able to knock one out in 15 ~ 20 minutes. A tweak here and there should be all it would take to dial one in close enough for the real world. Just been way too busy rebuilding saws and re-reading your quotes to get at it. LOL

But I definitely intend to make a couple as soon as I can find some suitable stock and a little time..., just for chits and grins if nothing else. And I won't be shy about my impressions of the roll your own approach (and effectiveness) vs. the Husky depth gauge tools I use now..., which happen to work fine for me already.


----------



## HarleyT (May 15, 2018)

I have no real problem, as you.
You guys are just humoring him a bunch.

His deal is great, just not real practical....

No biggee.


----------



## HarleyT (May 15, 2018)

Germans are from a different culture, so there are differences in "politeness".
In the 1990s, I worked a while at a factory that was putting in some new production lines, and the tooling was German, and they brought in a team from Germany to install them, they housed them in local hotels, but provided them with lockers at the plant. The lockers were on a wall by one of the existing production lines that were functioning, and the workers there were into the second hour of their shift {second} when the germans called it a day.
It was noted that a lot of gals {and guys} started congregating there on their breaks. Chatting with the workers on that line, etc...


----------



## HarleyT (May 15, 2018)

The germans would get to their locker, strip down totally to change clothes.
Totally!!
Walk around with penises flopping, etc...
Penii???
Penae???
The old ladies would squawk and hoot, the germans just ignored them.....
The line would pretty much shut down.......


----------



## HarleyT (May 15, 2018)

No good looking gals/babes, just a bunch of un-circumcised guys.....

No Youtube back then.....


----------



## hannes69 (May 15, 2018)

Stihl 041S said:


> My bad. As many here.......I was wrong.


Made your bachelor or master in irony?


----------



## PogoInTheWoods (May 15, 2018)

_We're_ humoring him a bunch? LOL

And aside from the slight slot dimension variances among different chain types, I am actually curious about how much difference there's gonna be between different brand profiles of 3/8's. My guess is it will be negligible in the real world and the tool will accurately represent the _intended_ differences between different chain types of the same pitch with the exception of the much shorter LP stuff which is its own little category anyway.


----------



## hannes69 (May 15, 2018)

HarleyT said:


> Please use a good quality rubber band...
> Not that cheap german crap!!


Please send me one per airmail. Maybe the one that is holding the rest of your brain cells together. Two birds with one stone (or two flies with one swat as we say in Germany): I have your high quality rubber band for future experiments, and your brain can relax even more than it does already.


----------



## HarleyT (May 15, 2018)

I would think that the overarching goal here would be is to make a tool that would work on all chains of the same pitch, not make one tool for each of the dozens of different brands and models of chain of the same pitch, like the dilemma that the makers of the auto-sharpening machines like the "Franzen".


----------



## hannes69 (May 15, 2018)

PogoInTheWoods said:


> And this guy would make one of Hannes's tools in a heartbeat if he could ever get past page 1 here.



I think this guy can be considered as my person in a parallel universe, me on the theoretical side, him on the practical one 
I think I could learn many things from him and maybe he from me as well.
But: If I should learn from him, first step would be that the given video gets some subtitles 
And vice versa, if he should learn from this thread and he should get over page 1, I think he should learn to calm down a little bit 
Nice video!


----------



## HarleyT (May 15, 2018)

I think Poge is thinking about life in the real world a tad now.

Anyone here should be able to respond to basic questions,
that is all....


----------



## HarleyT (May 15, 2018)

Hannes has great ideas, just not real practical.


----------



## JimM (May 15, 2018)

hannes69 said:


> I think this guy can be considered as my person in a parallel universe, me on the theoretical side, him on the practical one
> I think I could learn many things from him and maybe he from me as well.
> But: If I should learn from him, first step would be that the given video gets some subtitles
> And vice versa, if he should learn from this thread and he should get over page 1, I think he should learn to calm down a little bit
> Nice video!


Nah, not even close. Don’t flatter yourself.


----------



## hannes69 (May 15, 2018)

PogoInTheWoods said:


> If I had some material even remotely close to the thickness in all these calculations I'd make one..., or a couple.


Hmm. I always collect some metal items that seem suitable for future projects. E.g. metal fittings and mounts from furniture. Maybe parts from old metal shelves. Maybe a cookie tray  For a certain stability it should have a thickness > 30 mil I think. 



PogoInTheWoods said:


> maybe even some of the heavier metal pallet strapping would be strong enough?


Not the ones used here in Europe. You can easily bend a full circle with a radius of 2 inches that is fully reversible with this material 



PogoInTheWoods said:


> A Dremel or die grinder and a file along with a couple measurements should be able to knock one out in 15 ~ 20 minutes.


Yes.



PogoInTheWoods said:


> And I won't be shy about my impressions of the roll your own approach (and effectiveness) vs. the Husky depth gauge tools I use now..., which happen to work fine for me already.


Don´t be shy, yes


----------



## hannes69 (May 15, 2018)

HarleyT said:


> Germans are from a different culture, so there are differences in "politeness".


In most of the forums political or cultural discussions can be considered breaking some forum rules. Don´t know the rules here exactly. You already mentioned some other stuff like this regarding your 'leader' if I remember correctly. No need to play on fields like that I think.


----------



## PogoInTheWoods (May 15, 2018)

HarleyT said:


> I would think that the overarching goal here would be is to make a tool that would work on all chains of the same pitch..,



That's what I was getting at in my last post. It should obviously work for all chains with the same pitch ( by its sheer design ) given similar enough tie strap and preset characteristics ..., with the main difference among chains being the _intended_ differences of the actual tooth design and corresponding performance..., which would presumably yield similarly corresponding results from the tool itself. Having numbers from various 3/8's chain brands will fill those holes in the calculator world. Having a tool to _use_ on various chains looks like it may be a faster and more practical way to go about it, though.

And I think I've always leaned toward the practical side of this thread, but there I go gettin' all theoretical. Damn.


----------



## hannes69 (May 15, 2018)

PogoInTheWoods said:


> And aside from the slight slot dimension variances among different chain types, I am actually curious about how much difference there's gonna be between different brand profiles of 3/8's. My guess is it will be negligible in the real world and the tool will accurately represent the _intended_ differences between different chain types of the same pitch with the exception of the much shorter LP stuff which is its own little category anyway.


I hope as well that the different chains are comparable enough to work with only one tool. Let´s see. As explained earlier, the Husky tool shouldn´t even fit onto a Stihl chain as intended, so I´m not so sure about that at the moment...
EDIT: when speaking of type 1 of course. Type 2 is another case, this shouls hopefully be rather independant on chain type. So in the end the pro guys using all pitches should get away with 5 gauge tools. Maybe 10 when considering 'soft' and 'hard' (or 5 when making 'dual' gauges)


----------



## Stihl 041S (May 15, 2018)

hannes69 said:


> Made your bachelor or master in irony?


Why irony? 
I read it wrong and admitted it.


----------



## hannes69 (May 15, 2018)

HarleyT said:


> Hannes has great ideas, just not real practical.


By making your own gauge type 2 and using it you can prove this or the opposite.


----------



## hannes69 (May 15, 2018)

Stihl 041S said:


> Why irony?
> I read it wrong and admitted it.


Sorry, my fault then. Maybe sometimes I read a little bit too much between the lines....


----------



## hannes69 (May 15, 2018)

HarleyT said:


> I would think that the overarching goal here would be is to make a tool that would work on all chains of the same pitch, not make one tool for each of the dozens of different brands and models of chain of the same pitch


Finally some light is shining on HarleyT´s path full of pain


----------



## hannes69 (May 15, 2018)

JimM said:


> Nah, not even close. Don’t flatter yourself.


Most of the time, the smilies I use can be considered as part of the text.


----------



## hannes69 (May 15, 2018)

PogoInTheWoods said:


> And I think I've always leaned toward the practical side of this thread, but there I go gettin' all theoretical. Damn.


Theoretically spoken, there should sometimes be some connection between theory and practice


----------



## JimM (May 15, 2018)

hannes69 said:


> Most of the time, the smilies I use can be considered as part of the text.


Sorry. I’m not aware of your formula for that.


----------



## PogoInTheWoods (May 15, 2018)

I use the 3/8 Husky tool on all my pro style 3/8 chain which would obviously include Stihl, Oregon, Carlton, and now Husky, (as I understand they are manufacturing their own chain as of late). The results seem similar in practice among the different types relative to their originally designed performance.
That's my point. They're _designed_ to perform differently from one another. With any luck, the tool will somewhat _preserve_ those differences transparently and simply manage the depth gauge according to the personal tastes or needs of the user regardless of chain manufacturer..., (relatively speaking), and similar to the Husky tool, but perhaps with smoother results across the life of whatever chain it happens to be maintaining.

I also use the Husky .404 tool on my Oregon .404 chain with what I consider to be acceptable results.

There's no argument in theory that the Type 2 tool provides a smoother and more consistent cutting angle over the life a chain. The question now is how forgiving is it across chain brands of the same 'basic' style and pitch? While in theory the Husky gauges provide less than desirable numbers, they have yet to give me cause for alarm regarding how they work on any chain I've thrown at them. I would suggest that alone should be an encouraging sign toward similar (if not better) flexibility among chain types for the Type 2 tool.


----------



## hannes69 (May 15, 2018)

PogoInTheWoods said:


> I use the 3/8 Husky tool on all my pro style 3/8 chain which would obviously include Stihl, Oregon, Carlton, and now Husky, (as I understand they are manufacturing their own chain as of late). The results seem similar in practice among the different types relative to their originally designed performance.


Interesting! In my opinion there should be a problem when using the Husky 3/8 gauge 'hard' settting on Stihl 3/8 RM chain (see bottom of post #226 in this thread here https://www.arboristsite.com/community/threads/tutorial-make-your-own-raker-depth-gauge-supported-by-software-tool.320388/page-12#post-6570484


----------



## PogoInTheWoods (May 15, 2018)

As for the excitable Canadian, here's another very interesting (and amusing to anyone who knows what a Mac10-10 is) video of a "little engine than could" with an older chain toward the end of its life with uneven cutter lengths all over the place that was hand-filed with depth gauges maintained with a progressive style raker gauge tool. Notice how the chain performs throughout the cut with a 28" bar despite the saw only being 54cc. Also notice where the cut ends up despite the one-handed self-feeding of the saw with all the uneven cutters. THIS is what a progressive depth gauge tool does for a chain with uneven teeth when used properly. Pretty much speaks for itself.

​


----------



## HarleyT (May 15, 2018)

Uneven teeth????


----------



## PogoInTheWoods (May 15, 2018)

Dude mang..., that's just wrong.

And you're right. LOL


----------



## Westboastfaller (May 17, 2018)

PogoInTheWoods said:


> Also notice where the cut ends up despite the one-handed self-feeding of the saw with all the uneven cutters.
> 
> THIS is what a progressive depth gauge tool does for a chain with uneven teeth when used properly. Pretty much speaks for itself.
> 
> ​



The subtitle says its a myth that you can't have uneven cutter's or people say you have to have even cutters (same thing ) I suppose a myth may come about when there are different variables. Different activities, different experience levels, different gear.. ect
Its not so cut and dry. (no pun)

1) You need to keep your teeth close to even if you don't use a progressive raker gauge or more accurate methods. (Reference: saddle gauge)
True.
2) You can do your rakers without a gauge with the use of a consistent angle, as well a consistent file stroke and with a quality file that's not worn out) THEN rakers can also be maintained WITH close to even teeth.
True

3)You need to keep your teeth even?

^^^Thats a really poorly structured stratment I made so the answer is:
Sometimes, yes.

And the one you keep bringing back into play and we keep wrestling over is:
4) You don't need to keep even teeth
with the use of a progressive gauge?

Answer: no you don't.
However, I am 99% you need to keep an undetermined percent of cutters in an undetermined sequence within an undetermined margin of one another as the cutting angle will decrease after the first 1/8 to 1/3 of the cutter.

The example in the vidio did not show extremely uneven teeth IMO.
I don't believe it can be based on a few teeth either if many are in close range.
Looking at the data of the Stihl RM with Stihl gauge, it looks like about 3-5% difference in cutting angle (For some perspective)
I did base it off the longer ones vs the shorter ones though. Wow, If you think that is uneven teeth then you may want to loosen off on your very strong position some.

From chain throws to dusting one side, then you will see me file according to nature. Right side is always more susceptible when brushing out as its on the bottom. If I'm unlucky and bang up the same cutters with chain throws then my teeth are as out of wack as that ***** in the picture in no time.
Otherwise I will file the 38 teeth when its time.

This is up there with an oil thread.. lol
I'm content to wait for more specs.
And see what happens in the future
but find myself defending.

Its too bad because I had some of these chains not that long ago that were just professionally filed and gauged but would bind in the wood in full bar length cuts with the dogs.
I was going to send them to Philbert when I first saw his "chain challenge" thread pop up about 8 months ago.
I believe he could have fixed them easy by evening the cutters and gauging those rakers. Of course with a self feed buck on smaller wood the problem would have seemed slight. Nevertheless.

Like Buckin' was saying, problems will show up in bigger wood. The more teeth in the cut the more accurate things need to be.

Re: the first part of the post.
Yes he did do some portions of the buck without the dogs. Most of the one handed was dogged in.
It is possible the dogs can keep it straight with a very slight dusting of one side for example but with the short pivot (back handle to spikes) of a smaller saw with short dogs then you would have to apply a noticeable amount of extra pressure. On a bigger saw with supper sized dogs then it would take more experience to notice it in a bigger felling cut when its very slight.
Post is long enough but I will quote again on some more off topic comments on "buckin".
I will say he won't always agree with himself as time moves on when he looks back. I've said things on here that I no longer agree with. I've changed styles in terms of felling.
Its forever evolving, I laught at young fallers or young into the game with there sometimes strong opinions like they have it all worked out and nothing needs to change.
5 more yrs and they will have a different opinion and 5 more yrs and they will have another.
Tiger Woods took 18 months away to reconstruct his swing when he seemed to be at his height.
(Tiger woods 'swing' ..you know when I pass on a joke like that I'm serious.. lol


----------



## Westboastfaller (May 17, 2018)

Was someone asking a question as to what was wrong with the saddle gauge??
I believe he got it answered on page one with a data read out but he never answered back and made posts saying that nobody here will answer his questions. I have a terrible feeling that he just must not have seen it?


.O25" new chain = .058 at the end of the chains life.
Hannes figures match that of what Carlton's figures were at the end of the chains life.

Progressive means it will take the larger ratio of raker needed as it wears vs the saddle gauge that doesn't have the progressive capabilities so it will end up with about 13-14 thou or half the cutting angle degree at the end of the chains life. If the teeth aren't kept even then this gauge will run into a second problem (problem #2) very quickly due to the ratio of cutting angle lost at a very rapid pace. Other complications group in with "problem #2 that will increase this further, as was mentioned back about 5 posts and that was that with irregular teeth with the saddle type, it will give you an extra high raker if the saddle is sitting on higher teeth or an extra low raker if the saddle is on two low rakers when you're treating a long tooth. Same applys in the same scenario but when the two points of contact ends are very unever one way or the other.
This is for anyone and especially "The little boy that cried wolf" that's been running around here. he real does get questions answered.

Problem #2 with the saddle gauge Is caused by different length teeth.
Its a mathematical impossibility that EVEN the progressive gauge will cut the raker at the same ratio to cutter wear throughout the life of the chain thus leaving different cutting angles.


----------



## HarleyT (May 17, 2018)

Westboastfaller said:


> Was someone asking a question as to what was wrong with the saddle gauge??
> I believe he got it answered on page one with a data read out but he never answered back and made posts saying that nobody here will answer his questions. I have a terrible feeling that he just must not have seen it?
> 
> 
> ...




Have you uploaded a pic of your raker depth gauge yet?


----------



## HarleyT (May 17, 2018)

Just checking............


----------



## KiwiBro (May 17, 2018)

Hey horses, drink your damned, universal raker setter water:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Digital-TL...269916&hash=item41d4e87a6d:g:YYQAAOSw59taFopE

you're all frigg'n welcome. LOL


----------



## hannes69 (May 17, 2018)

HarleyT said:


> Have you uploaded a pic of your raker depth gauge yet?


Have you taken your medicaments with the exact dose determined by your mental doctor? Yet? Today? Really?
As long as you don´t answer questions posed to you (several times the case already) you won´t get answers to yours. Concept of equilibration.


----------



## hannes69 (May 17, 2018)

KiwiBro said:


> Hey horses, drink your damned, universal raker setter water


You´re laying out some really good bait there, feeling a little bit tempted, but, hmmm, it doesn´t fit well enough into my personal preferences


----------



## hannes69 (May 19, 2018)

Today I tried measuring chains with photos and using an image measuring software. This approach doesn´t work as well as I expected. It´s difficult to make a setup where all distances form 90° shapes. I have no special macro lense, my normal lense makes some distortions out of center (the rivets get more and more elliptic than pefect round on the photos´edges). There are reflections and shadows.
I think for doing measurements by using such techniques you need better equipment and more knowledge how to do everything as perfect as possible.
The results were in the same ballpark like my manual caliper measurements. There were some deviations, most of them cancel out each other in such a way that the results are the same like shown in the start post, the resulting deviations for the cutting angle were in the range +/- 0.3°, so when assuming 'reality' lays in between these values from the two methods numbers probably vary within +/- 0.15° compared to the ones shown in the starting post.
-------------------------

When having some measurements for different chain pitches and when knowing (hopefully) the fact that the numbers mainly depend on pitch, and chain manufacturer and so on have a minor influence, then we can offer a simple table like the following (gauge type 2), showing now the numbers for the already given chains and assuming a 'hard' cutting angle of ~6.5° peak and a 'soft' cutting angle of ~ 8.0° peak and rivet meaning the rivet number following to the raker:

chain pitch ["] chain gauge [mil] slot length [mil] slot width [mil] rivet # gauge thickness hard / soft [mil]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3/8.........................63..........................850................175..............2....................50 / 42
3/8 LP....................50..........................500................146..............1....................47 / 40

Such a table should be more sympathetic than the starting post of this thread 
You simply pick your chain, look up the slot dimensions, take your sheet of metal according to your preference (hard / soft) and do the rectangular cutting, ready.
When having a metal sheet with a certain thickness, you´ll know then where you land, within the given hard / soft range and on which side. And you know the ideal value when you can alter the thickness by what technique ever.
The table could be even more simplified when assuming that most of the people understand at least the positioning of such a depth gauge on the chain. Then you don´t need 'chain gauge', 'slot length' and 'slot width' because they are self explanatory then and you can find out these values simply by yourself.
The same could be done for type 1 gauges. I personally see only one aspect that maybe speaks for maintaining type 1 as well: the simpler method of adjusting to a hard/soft setting with a given material thickness.
If type 2 works well enough numerically for all chain pitches and when finding a good solution regarding the type 2 thickness problem, hopefully type 1 can be neglected.
The final result should lead into a new thread in this forum, some short explanations, some photos and/or drawings and of course the final table like above.
Maybe target a timeline, like 'merry x-mas 2018, here´s your new raker depth solution for 2019'


----------



## Skeans (May 19, 2018)

Honestly this would be best suited to a harvester operator that does their own chains say .404 80 gauge with .050 rakers and 11H 3/4” .122 gauge with .060 rakers these are a fixed feed speed and rate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## PogoInTheWoods (May 19, 2018)

Much more palatable for the masses..., and saves me the looming frustration of trying to get all those measurements! I will, however, still attempt to measure some .404 so it can at least be represented to some degree.

I have been doing some research through my general stash of 'filing, grinding, chain types, angles and settings, etc.' folder looking for a Carlton document on which I largely base my general position. I'll hopefully have a little time later to provide some interesting context to at least part of the background from the File-o-Plate (or any progressive type) development theory which addresses one aspect of how saw chain works that I've yet to see considered here. I will simply say that the intent of the progressive approach is _not_ to provide a perfectly linear cutting angle throughout the life of the chain, but rather one that _does_ vary slightly along the way. (Wonder how long it will take West Boast to rummage through his Carlton stuff to rebut what I've yet to even post.)

One thing I know with absolute certainty: There's no way a Mac 10-10 with a 28" bar using a chain with uneven cutters can make a nearly perfect buck through a 4 foot diameter maple log. The video proves it.


----------



## PogoInTheWoods (May 19, 2018)

hannes69 said:


> It´s all about the pivot point, it determines the cutting angle.



There are actually two pivot points to consider here. For the type 2 tool, one is the rivet when referring for the tool. The other is the heel of the cutting tooth _behind the rivet_...., referred to by Carlton as the _hinge point. _For the type 1 tool it would be the top of the tie strap for the tool, but would still be the heel of the cutting tooth..., again, behind the rivet.



hannes69 said:


> This variable and some others are neglected within the simple 'constant cutting angle' concept.



Just as an observation, and perhaps part of the subject's evolution...

The "constant cutting angle concept" term is actually a fallacy in all of this and would be more accurately described as "optimum desired cutting angle" to accommodate all of the actual variables and nuances being considered (and applied to/for) in any given cutting situation. Subjective? Yes. More appropriate? I think so, but that's just me.



hannes69 said:


> I think: Yes, it rocks up and down. But this maybe can cover only a certain degree of variations in height. If a tooth is very high compared to the surrounded ones, it may lead to a 'lifting' off and make the other cutters not used. Or one tooth very low maybe doesn´t really cut anymore or at least with lower pressure and so a smaller chip.



So here's where it gets interesting considering how saw chain actually works, and where my particular position has its roots. Yes the chain rocks up and down and _does actually lift off of the bar when it grabs a chip._ It does so by rocking backward onto the heel of the cutter to achieve the cutting angle permitted by the depth gauge and is referred to by Carlton as the "attack position" of the cutter. It grabs its chip, settles back down onto the bar, and hauls the chip away to be ejected. For all intents and purposes it clears the way for the next cutter to do the exact same thing regardless of the cutter's size. A taller tooth preceding a shorter one is not acting like a depth gauge that's too high for the shorter tooth. It's just getting the wood out of the way for the shorter tooth to grad some too. Plain and freeking simple. If the depth gauge is set properly for not only the next shorter cutter itself, but also in conjunction with how the hinge point of the cutter is affecting the orientation of the cutting surface as it assumes its "attack position", the process will repeat itself all the way along the chain within any _reasonable_ variations in parameters scattered among many random cutters of differing lengths. Period.

While the previous stuff has been beaten to death, (and proven to be true), the key point to the above is to illuminate the _hinge point_ of the cutter as another very important aspect to consider when attempting to determine (or calculate) "optimum desired cutting angle". I've re-read this whole thread (yeah, I really did, folks) and found no specific mention of it anywhere. There are obviously references to how things change (or naturally want to) at a point about halfway through a cutter's life. The reason for that isn't the distance from the cutter to the raker, it's how the "attack position" of the cutter changes relative to its hinge point (heel of the cutter) which is technically controlled by the rivet being _the_ pivot point relative to the length of the tooth. When the tooth is new, it pivots backward on its heel with the rivet as a pivot point (or axle) with its cutting face conveniently pointing upward. How high is determined by the raker. As the tooth gets shorter and shorter, the cutting face gets closer and closer to the pivot point and raises up less and less to its desired "attack position" if the raker is not adjusted accordingly for optimum position. As a matter of fact, once the cutter length passes the mid point of the rivet it actually begins to point _downward_ in its "attack position" if the raker is not adjusted to _over_ compensate for the difference in axis relative to cutter length. So what was appropriate at the beginning of the chain's life isn't good enough at the middle of its life, let alone the end of it. While angle differences will be slight, they are still required and maintaining a constant cutting angle across the life of a cutting tooth isn't even necessarily a good thing..., and perhaps why Carlton did go to such length with their design of the FOP..., and why it and other type 1 tools don't maintain perfect math no matter how bad some folks think they should. Easiest way to illustrate what I'm attempting to explain is to lift a couple of illustrations from one of the Carlton publications I pulled out for the purpose. I also freely admit to paraphrasing much of what's posted here from excerpts of the publication instead of just copying and pasting what was actually a bit less detailed than what I'm tossing out here.

Anyway, certainly food for additional thought, and I'm sure a few comments as well. Happy head-scratching.




​


----------



## Stihl 041S (May 19, 2018)

Lots of good info. 
Thanks Pogo!!


----------



## Philbert (May 19, 2018)

You guys paid by the word?

Philbert


----------



## PogoInTheWoods (May 19, 2018)

tl;dr 

LOL


----------



## Stihl 041S (May 19, 2018)

Philbert said:


> You guys paid by the word?
> 
> Philbert


Kipling did.......


----------



## Stihl 041S (May 19, 2018)

Philbert said:


> You guys paid by the word?
> 
> Philbert


And Pogo is using a flip phone!!!!
Kipling wasn’t...


----------



## Philbert (May 19, 2018)

Lots of comments how the length of the cutter does not matter, as long as the depth gauge is matched to the individual cutter. They focus on cutter height. 

But the width of the cutter ('tooth set') is also related to cutter length. A shorter, narrower cutter will not define the walls of the kerf as well, and some of those fibers will have to be recut by subsequent teeth. 

Chain might still cut, but not as smoothly or as efficiently, as with equal length cutters. 

Philbert


----------



## PogoInTheWoods (May 19, 2018)

I don't remember ever stating the length of the cutter "does not matter", just that varying lengths won't make your saw cut in circles if the depth gauges are maintained in a relatively attentive fashion with a progressive type tool. I believe I also mentioned the fact that a smaller tooth would grab a more narrow chip, (but not necessarily thinner). Even a chain with perfectly even length cutters grabs varying sizes of chips just by the nature of how a chain works.

However, I did make the statement that most folks would never notice the difference between a chain with perfectly matched cutters and one with a handful of uneven cutters when the depth gauges are adjusted appropriately. And I stand by that statement.

I suppose they could always grab a micrometer or caliper and measure the chips!


----------



## hannes69 (May 19, 2018)

PogoInTheWoods said:


> Much more palatable for the masses..., and saves me the looming frustration of trying to get all those measurements! I will, however, still attempt to measure some .404 so it can at least be represented to some degree.


Hmpf  Someone has to do these measurements, really. Some time in the future there has to be a new simplified thread dealing with this topic. The evolution thing. BobL built something upon Carlton material, I built something up upon BobL´s thread, now later on you get back to Carlton material (  ) and finally all this 'prework' finds its way into another thread (maybe not started by me!). My calculator now allows to know the resulting cutting angles for a given raker depth tool combined with a certain chain. I started the simplified list containing two entries. If this list should make some sense, it has to be filled properly. That means in my opinion 3/8, 3/8LP, .325 and .404 chain pitches. If the list shoul have some 'power' or 'weight', some measurments additional to mine have to be made. I don´t think that from 2 single measurements done by one person (one certain 3/8 chain, one certain 3/8LP chain) we can make general conclusions. It is possible to assume that there are some parallels, I personally can´t make such assumptions at this point. Too small data set, so simple in my opinion. That is the point that I mentioned in teh starting post, it´s a community project, there is a need that some people deliver something call it 'directly' or 'physically'. 
In this thread there are many opinions, point of views, reports about experiences, critics and so on, but thereé definitely a huge lack of DIRECT support. 
This words aren´t directed to your person obviously, you already have delivered useful numbers for real gauges and so made some measurements.
If there is the will to give something practicable and useful to the community, someone will have to make these measurements, there´s really no way around it. I personally won´t buy chain pitches I have no use for. This measuring task is maybe not very amusing, but on the other side it is not magic and it really can be done. 
I know, it´s easy to write some lines in a forum, it´s way harder to actually DO something.


----------



## hannes69 (May 19, 2018)

Philbert said:


> You guys paid by the word?


Yes  In reality I´m an influencer paid by Stihl


----------



## PogoInTheWoods (May 19, 2018)

Another curiosity is how the Carlton numbers provided in the illustration would translate into degrees of slope..., generally speaking given no actual data for the chain itself. Probably not something that could be easily ball-parked, tho.


----------



## PogoInTheWoods (May 19, 2018)

Is there something in the calculations that addresses the effect of the change in axis point for the attack position of the cutter as it gets smaller? Seems to me to be a fairly critical consideration regardless of the type of chain.


----------



## Westboastfaller (May 19, 2018)

I wasn't ready to get into this yet. I think you read the whole thread but my posts? I talked about "attack mode in the first post I addressed to you I believe. When I said to Hannes before you came on, ..." these numbers were not new to me, I got them from Carlton and much more 15 yrs ago from a little book called 'Everything you want to know about saw chain"
...and said I would share "the much more" later. I haven't read it as I'm really tired but I was going to bring it up to Hannes as a negative in terms of running a chain past the rivot as they refer to this as the teetor tottter affect (I have talked about it 2-3 times on this site)
After the tooth is shorter than the rivet (pivot point) instead of going up in the air as would a long tooth, it will go down as soon as it hits the wood essentially pull out of the cut. Its true but it doesn't totally work that way. It takes the chip. I remembered in the early 90', a saw builder friend raced down in Oregon when he worded for Shindiawa and got second on a small class and used little hooks and thinned the cutter width.

Carlton had a lot of emphasis on not over hooking and low rakers. I believe they want to discouraged any extended use of a chain with the teeter totter affect. as well excessive strain on the mental.

Chain Propaganda from the evil empire's.

I'll have to read all that after sleep.

Let's talk about Billy
I'm going to post about 4 vidios of about 6 that I saw and break your little hearts.
Two are on wedging and
Two on film that barber chaired.
I'll be filling in the blanks and give a far better education on how it really is.
Get ready for some level changing boys.
When he does get small falling work,he grinds his chains.. Hmm
Even cutters.
He was ranting in one video that the gauge makes raker, teeth and chips "EXACTLY" the same. Well we know that's not true
That was a massive exaggeration an that "4ft Maple? 38" max . May have been 45" at the butt.
Its was up to his belt when the cut dropped. Thats only 62% of the volume he claimed. 5/8
Noboby ever said you can't run a chain with uneven cutters for the 20th time. So what got proved again?I would like to know how many chains he has really aborted?

...not often I am the third longest poster in a thread?


----------



## hannes69 (May 19, 2018)

PogoInTheWoods said:


> The "constant cutting angle concept" term is actually a fallacy in all of this and would be more accurately described as "optimum desired cutting angle" to accommodate all of the actual variables and nuances being considered (and applied to/for) in any given cutting situation. Subjective? Yes. More appropriate? I think so, but that's just me.


Now things really get interesting, indeed 
Once again the evolution thing, I like it! 
I think in such a way: There was the time with counting file strokes and constant depth tools. That meant the right raker depth at the beginning of a chain´s life and a more and more 'wrong' raker depth towards the chain´s end of life. Then there came the progressive approach, probably started by Carlton and then copied by other manufacturers. So we have a correct raker depth at the beginning and a more correct raker depth towards the end. 
Ok, maybe a real constant cutting angle has some sideeffects or maybe is a little bit overkill at the very end of a chain´s life, maybe. But aiming for it is at least the right direction in my opinion. And all progressive tools actually don´t achieve a constant cutting angle, even my type 2 doesn´t that  
As I said, the 'constant cutting angle' concept is surely a simplification. But at least a better working simplification comapared to the 'constant depth' concept.
I don´t see a contradiction in this topic at this point. Your ideas at this point fit perfectly to the recent work. My calculator gives numbers for a given tool combined with a given chain. And until now we used a small simplification to make the hard to understand topic a little bit easier. It seems a very good point of you to question what to aim for. 
This is an additional topic which leads to further inevestigation  Maybe there´s a way to calculate your 'optimum desired cutting angle' related to cutter wearing  
Carlton says in this document, that "cutter 2 needs 0.045" instead of the initial 0.027". When these numbers don´t get out from HarleyT´s a... they most come from somewhere grounded. Or maybe they say we need this number because the FOP delivers this number by accident ?  There must be some reason.
I have to carefully read this stuff and have to think about it. You speak of head-scratching. Yes. I have a sort of mathematical brain, but this stuff is not so easy. Some pivot points, angles, lengths and positions, something spins here and there, and lifts and falls, hmmm. I see some papers and pencil with many confusing drawings coming. And in the end, like in alchemy, the new calculator delivering 'optimum desired cutting angles' makes gold out of the dirt 



PogoInTheWoods said:


> I've re-read this whole thread (yeah, I really did, folks) and found no specific mention of it anywhere.


yeah, this whole thread  Leading to nirvana or apocalypse... The problem is, that until now we have no actual numbers for the optimum angles. Carlton maybe has these, but maybe they won´t offer the secret formula 
Everything has to be done on your own, so... 
Now we are once again in the field between theory and practice. Can we really get these 'perfect' numbers and are they really necessary? It seems we have to aim for numbers between 'constant depth' and 'constant angle'. Type and type 2 gauges already are in this ballpark. They aren´t a DAF and they aren´t a lousy saddle tool. Type 1 is a little bit more on the saddle side and type 2 more on the DAF side. 

And then it is questionable if Carlton can claim the 'truth' only for their point of view. 
We´re dealing here with mathematical/physical models. You can simplify them (as we always try to do when aiming for practical solutions) and you can make them more and more complex (when trying to catch most of 'reality' in order not to forget or neglect something important). In the end you only can try it. If someone says 'my chain has the exact same performance through its life when using a constant depth gauge' then this is reality for the person saying this. When I personally say 'my chain maintains a similar performance through its life when using my selfmade gauge type 2' then this is my impression and my reality. 
I don´t think that someone of us will make tests under lab conditions. So we will end with a solution, that feels good in the end. 
And in the end the chain manufacturers profit the most when reading this thread  They make use of our brains and even don´t have to pay for it...


----------



## hannes69 (May 19, 2018)

PogoInTheWoods said:


> Another curiosity is how the Carlton numbers provided in the illustration would translate into degrees of slope..., generally speaking given no actual data for the chain itself. Probably not something that could be easily ball-parked, tho.





PogoInTheWoods said:


> Is there something in the calculations that addresses the effect of the change in axis point for the attack position of the cutter as it gets smaller? Seems to me to be a fairly critical consideration regardless of the type of chain.


I hope to find something out about these topics. Should hopefully all work with plain trigonometry, like the inner world of my calculator  Triangles and angles and more triangles and even more angles


----------



## hannes69 (May 19, 2018)

Westboastfaller said:


> Carlton had a lot of emphasis on not over hooking and low rakers. I believe they want to discouraged any extended use of a chain.


That´s an important point I think. How do you say it, take words from such sources with a grain of salt?  The manufacturers normally should not be very interested in publishing too much of the 'real truth' and instead more of the 'truth' we SHOULD hear in their opinion.... Most of the money they make with chains, far less with depth gauge tools. We´ll have to find out the truth by ourselves 
That´s the reason for all of this mumbo jumbo here...


----------



## PogoInTheWoods (May 19, 2018)

hannes69 said:


> Can we really get these 'perfect' numbers and are they really necessary?



Exactly. But striving for "consistently effective" should always be a main component of the initiative as has been mentioned several times. And Carlton certainly set a different standard with their introduction of the FOP. And to quote that Will Sonnet line..., "No brag. Just fact". It does what they say it does for a given type of their chain. No denying that.

The cutter hinge point seemed to me another 'possibly quantifiable' element to toss into the mix, both for additional consideration and to possibly explain and/or justify some unanticipated variances in the overall approach to achieving desirable performance results both in the calculations and with the chain itself. No more. No less.



Westboastfaller said:


> I wasn't ready to get into this yet.



_You_ weren't ready yet? So sorry I didn't adhere to _your_ schedule of how the thread should proceed. Are you kidding?

I'm aware of your Carlton references and all the other "disturbances" that affect how a cut may or may not go. I simply brought it up in a more relevant context to the actual purpose of the thread instead of some vague and mysterious faller-esque BS. That's one of the reasons I brought it up, but evidently before you thought the thread was ready for a simple, uncomplicated version lacking your expert perspective. So sorry, dude.

Regarding BBR and his antics, he is what he is. Take it or leave it for what it may be worth. Getting into any extended criticism here about his YouTube channel would be completely pointless to everyone..., except maybe yourself. The vids spoke for themselves..., basically entertainment in a lighthearted vein that was generally associated with the subjects at hand and intended to break the monotony of the thread a little. A coupla little harmless jabs at the caliper crowd and some fun with a 10-10 and you want to take it to a whole other level? That would be absolutely counterproductive to the thread, and frankly, absurd.

I'll also mention in my not so humble opinion that your increasingly condescending attitude isn't doing yourself or anyone else any favors when it comes to helping the cause to be more easily understood and accessible by folks who may actually _want_ to learn more here. Hannes has chilled a bit and it clearly shows. It's also appreciated..., at least by me. Now its your turn.

I'm gonna take a stab at measuring up some Stihl 46RM tonight. I sincerely hope _you_ get what is obviously some badly needed sleep. Then reconsider how you can possibly be more effective here without coming off as such a d**k, if indeed that's even possible.


----------



## edisto (May 19, 2018)

Westboastfaller said:


> Let's talk about Billy



It's the boat, my friends...gotta rock it like a boat...


----------



## Westboastfaller (May 20, 2018)

PogoInTheWoods said:


> There are actually two pivot points to consider here. For the type 2 tool, one is the rivet when referring for the tool. The other is the heel of the cutting tooth _behind the rivet_...., referred to by Carlton as the _hinge point. _For the type 1 tool it would be the


Think I'll pass on reading again about the teeter totter affect. I don't believe it to be factual in the field, only theory.
I OD'd on that stuff a long time ago. As I was saying about a "race chain" as well understanding where the decrease cutting angle comes from then I couldn't find It relevant here prior to you posting, as the same now.
This is about the "horizontal flat" WHERE THE RAKER IS SET not attack mode. In attack mode the raker CONTROLS that.

I was going to bring it up as one of those.."as a matter of fact " things.
but its not relevant to this.


You quoted Hannes saying ..."Its
all about the pivot point (base) that determines the cutting angle"

The base is at a fixed height so once it it established its a basic fixed pivot.
(Constant)
The cutter has a consistent angle. example stihl RM 11.8°)
The gauge in a straight edge so its design gives a constant angle. So what actually determines the decreasing cutting angle?

*The increased distance that the wearing tooth touches on the raker gauge each time. ,(increased run)

Say the cutters had a different design and they never retreated as you sharpened but just got lower (opossed to lower and further away each time) then as they got lower the raker ratio to cutter wear ratio would always increase as the angle flatend obviously and increasing your cutting angle as the chain wore. This is because the run remains constant in this hypothetical scenario.

A small amount of travel closer to A pivot is a great deal more movment at the tip than the same small amount of travel close to the tip. It wouldn't move the tip much in compression. This is what the tooth does as it moves further away.
If the rise stays constant but the run increases then angle becomes less.

The cutter wear increases the run and reduces the cutting angle.

That's it. You have to view it through trig with it being a triangle.



*Edit


----------



## PogoInTheWoods (May 20, 2018)

I did my best to come up with some measurements for Stihl 46RM .404 chain (.063 gauge, of course). I know the Oregon LG is also of particular interest to compare with the Stihl RS but what I though I had on the tail end of a reel was actually the Vanguard stuff. I do have a brand new loop of Husky H46 which I believe to be Oregon 72LPX. I may be able to get to that later as an additional 3/8's player, but think some .325 numbers would be more useful now to round out the initial batch of rough data for the common chain sizes. And I DO emphasize _rough_ when it comes to the numbers I'm presenting here. I went through part of the exercise last night and then went through everything again a couple more times this morning. Nothing elaborate involved. Digital caliper, straight edge, keen eye, and a bunch of repetition to hopefully arrive at usable mean numbers. And with no means to accurately determine the cutting angle, I simply used what Stihl publishes as their maintenance spec for that entry. Also of note was considerable inconsistency among rivet diameters. I averaged out a bunch of measurements against a new unused preset to arrive at the 5mm number..., which certainly sounds like a reasonable and nicely rounded choice for the task at hand. (The preset itself even had slightly different rivet diameters.)

Anyway...

For the Type 1 parameters:

A) Cutter/Raker distance averaged 6.40mm
B) Cutter Height measured from top of tie strap averaged 5.75mm
C) Cutting Angle as published by Stihl in their maintenance specs (and presumably their starting point) is 0.030" (.80mm)

For the Type 2 parameters:

A) Cutter/Raker distance averaged 6.40mm
B) Cutter Height measured from center of rivet averaged 9.80mm
C) Cutting Angle - Again Stihl spec of 0.030" (.80mm)
D) Horizontal Rivet/Raker Distance measured from center of rivet to inside edge of raker (per illustration in the software) averaged 18.75mm
E) Rivet Diameters were inconsistent but averaged right in the 5.00mm ballpark.

The entire exercise took a little over an hour and a half which wasn't too bad. I did mess with a few different chains and presets just to get my feet wet before committing any numbers to paper. The larger profile chain certainly helped in figuring out the easiest methods to use for obtaining the measurements. Going from .404 to .325 will certainly be quite the contrast, tho. I imagine the margin of error will be quite a bit larger for the smaller chain without the use of more precise measuring tools.

Should be interesting to see what these numbers spit out with the calculator. I do know that the 'off the roll' raker setting corresponds perfectly with the "soft" position of the Husky gauge if that lends anything of particular interest to the overall conclusions.

Get those propellor hats wound up and have at it, fellas.


----------



## hannes69 (May 20, 2018)

PogoInTheWoods said:


> The cutter hinge point seemed to me another 'possibly quantifiable' element to toss into the mix, both for additional consideration and to possibly explain and/or justify some unanticipated variances in the overall approach to achieving desirable performance results both in the calculations and with the chain itself. No more. No less.


Yes  Let´s see if it is quantifiable for my brain, haven´t done my homework yet... At least I took two chains, one brand new, the other one more than half worn so the tip of the cutter is behind the rivet as pivot point. I must confess I never really thought about every finest detail concerning the moving cutters, now I see what´s happening, yes. Should hopefully lead to a similar kind of math like the raker depth gauge calculations. Angles.



PogoInTheWoods said:


> I simply brought it up in a more relevant context to the actual purpose of the thread instead of some vague and mysterious faller-esque BS.


I must get used to the rough and raw language from the rough and raw community here  I think you´re a little bit harsh with your words here, but I certainly know what you mean and I sometimes have problems exactly dealing with that. I´m often confronted with special technical terms on one side, on the other side terms from very colloquial language. And sometimes I have problems with the missing context. I often have a feeling that certain statements seem to be right, they sound like that, but I don´t REALLY get the meaning because of the lack of context. That´s often a motley mix of personal experience, approaches from technical literature combined with youtube videos  Some of the information sometimes 'hangs in the air' a little bit, I can´t make the relevant connections between the information. Yes, sometimes 'vague and mysterious', but I wouldn´t call it BS.



PogoInTheWoods said:


> I'll also mention in my not so humble opinion that your increasingly condescending attitude isn't doing yourself or anyone else any favors when it comes to helping the cause to be more easily understood and accessible by folks who may actually _want_ to learn more here. Hannes has chilled a bit and it clearly shows. It's also appreciated..., at least by me. Now its your turn.


Hmm, dark clouds coming along once more in this thread... 
I try to chill, yes.
It´s a little bit problematic, when the already very small number of people really participating in this thread start to point a gun at each other. There aren´t many people in this thread really interested in the topic and keep the thread alive, you can count them on one hand (maybe not using all fingers...).
What was the youtube link from Philbert? Why can´t we be friends? 



PogoInTheWoods said:


> I did my best to come up with some measurements for Stihl 46RM .404 chain


Thanks 
Now the list gets longer 



PogoInTheWoods said:


> I may be able to get to that later as an additional 3/8's player, but think some .325 numbers would be more useful now to round out the initial batch of rough data for the common chain sizes.


Yes.



PogoInTheWoods said:


> And I DO emphasize _rough_ when it comes to the numbers I'm presenting here.


How could a manual measurement using calipers NOT be rough?  It should be sufficient though.



PogoInTheWoods said:


> Also of note was considerable inconsistency among rivet diameters.


Yes, I made the same experience with my measurements. I measured 4.35 - 4.65 mm. That leads to cutting angle deviations of +/- 0.2° regarding the type 2 usage. Neglectable 



PogoInTheWoods said:


> Should be interesting to see what these numbers spit out with the calculator. I do know that the 'off the roll' raker setting corresponds perfectly with the "soft" position of the Husky gauge if that lends anything of particular interest to the overall conclusions.


Your numbers should be in the right range. Evidence: Putting virtually the Husky .404 gauge onto this chain using the soft setting, leads to an initial raker depth of 28.5 mil for a brand new chain. In this context and by the given accuracy, 28.5 = 30.0  
Of course I will publish the calculator´s results immediately when having the full data set  
I could give the number above for the new chain with the given data, but I can´t deliver the whole list because one figure is missing, the 'cutter´s angle', so the slope of the cutter itself  Time for the DAF or using another method (I used a very straight metal ruler, this sits perfectly onto the cutter without wobbling, laying this onto a table and align the chain in cutting direction with the table edge by the help of a 90° bent metal piece. The ruler 'extends' the cutter. After perfectly aligning this setup I removed the chain and let the ruler on its place. Then I made a pencil line along the ruler reaching to the table´s edge. Now there´s the wanted angle in a large version on the table  This method gave me very consistent results, +/-0.2° variation). I can´t simply assume that this angle is the same for a .404 and a 3/8 chain. Additionally the initial length of the cutter would be interesting to find a suitable table length for the cutter wearing.

Many thanks for the measurements once again, I know the effort.


----------



## KiwiBro (May 20, 2018)

hannes69 said:


> Time for the DAF


Welcome aboard.


----------



## hannes69 (May 20, 2018)

KiwiBro said:


> Welcome aboard.


Yes, sometimes the different worlds melt together


----------



## PogoInTheWoods (May 20, 2018)

hannes69 said:


> one figure is missing, the 'cutter´s angle',



I evidently confused 'cutter's angle' with 'cutting angle'. I presume you're referring to the top plate angle of the cutter from the leading edge sloping back to the heel? Definitely out of my pay range there. And yes, a DAF would certainly be the way to go for that.


----------



## hannes69 (May 20, 2018)

PogoInTheWoods said:


> I presume you're referring to the top plate angle of the cutter from the leading edge sloping back to the heel?


Confirmed.



PogoInTheWoods said:


> Definitely out of my pay range there. And yes, a DAF would certainly be the way to go for that.


I already gave the work instruction above  A DAF would be better, I personally don´t own one, so I had to improve. This method gives consistent numbers and the angle´s value showed up with my photo method as well.


----------



## Westboastfaller (May 21, 2018)

hannes69 said:


> I´m not so sure, is here a sort of misunderstanding?
> and when you speak of a "tall cutter" I have the impression that you maybe think that there are 2 different Stihl chains involved in my software, measurements and setup?
> It is always the same Stihl 3/8 RM chain. The 'cutter height' is the naming for a measurement within my software (couldn´t find a better name) that actually means 'distance from highest point of the cutter down to the pivot point of the gauge'. That are simply 2 different measurements depending on the gauge type. Type 1 sits onto the tie strap, type 2 onto a rivet. So the 2 measurements are different, but I call them both 'cutter height'... It is a kind of height of the cutter, it´s only a question what the base reference point of the height is


Apparently he doesn't read your posts. "twice". haha
Forwarded for remedial training purposes only.
I wasn't ready anyways.
*today I will be the best person I can be*


Different confusion! I'm sorry, I didn't read
*today I'll be the best person I can possibly be*


----------



## hannes69 (May 22, 2018)

So, I found some time and analyzed the Carlton material (the chain manual containing the excerpts shown by PogoinTheWoods).
What shall I say, Pandora´s box is opened 
I read all of it in the hope that it makes some things regarding raker depth clearer, I clearly failed.
They mention many things that feel correct to me, many things that are out of question. But concerning important points they stay very vague, deliver misleading information and in my opinion even make mistakes, confuse some things, mix up some things.
That´s my opinion; either they are on the wrong path sometimes, or I am too stupid to understand what they try to say.
So into detail (once more  ) :




Carlton shows this image in order to explain how a chainsaw chain works.

"As the cutter enters the wood, the leading edge starts to bite (#1) causing the cutter to rock back as far as the depth gauge will allow (#2)
The cutter is now in the attack position.
The cutter jumps off the guide bar and into the wood (#3).
[...]
The actual function of the depth gauge is to determine how far the cutter will rock back in position #2 and ultimately how large a bite the cutter will take. Also, it is normal fo the depth gauge to sink into the wood under certain conditions as illustrated in positions #2 and #3."

So far the quote.
When reading this and looking at the pictures, this all sounds plausible and right to me.
But when you take a closer look and take Carlton by the word, it´s not so clear anymore to me.
#1: Ok, the cutter sits on the rails, the chain is running, we move the saw to a piece of wood, the cutter´s leading edge touches the wood.
#2: The leading edge pierces the wood a little bit, the cutter 'hangs', the chain moves further, so the raker side lifts up = the cutter rocks back. The end position after #2 is called 'attack position'. The raker sinks into the wood as well "under certain conditions".
Questions to answer: How deep pierces the cutter? How deep pierces the raker? What are 'certain conditions'?
#3: Ok, the chain moves further, the raker can´t pierce deeper anymore, the cutter can because it´s sharper than the raker. The raker was already in the air after #2, now the leading edge bites more and the cutter side lifts up as well, whole of the cutter jumps off.
Questions to answer: How far jumps the cutter? Horizontally like in pic #3, more, less?

I accept the principles they´re showing here and maybe they reflect reality. #1 - #2 - #3 is a black box though. We know that this all happens 'more or less' as shown, but we don´t know exactly.
It surely depends on raker depth, sharpness of the cutter, chain speed, saw power and torque, chain tension, cutter shape, wood type,....
What´s my point: I don´t think we can quantify here anything. "All depends on everything..."

Later on they mention 'guesswork', 'constant method' and 'progressive method' as methods for raker depth filing.
They explain WHAT the constant method is, they say THAT this method is not recommended, but they really don´t explain WHY at this point (they say more or less it´s bad because it is constant).
Then the same argumentation for the progressive method. They say "this means simply that the depth gauge setting changes with the length of the cutter", that this is recommended and the FOP can do this.
Hope comes up, "it will be fully explained on the following pages".
Now comes the excerpt given by PogoInTheWoods.
And now things start to get really strange for me.
They ride and ride upon the 'hinge point' thing. And try to explain THAT there is a problem with it, THAT the FOP takes care of this problem and HOW the FOP takes care of this problem. And as a consequence this all means that the FOP is a better raker depth tool than a constant one or eyeballing.
Once again the illustrations:



Look carefully!
There obviously is something very wrong and not an unimportant one!
So there´s the hinge point. Yes. Like shown above, the cutter rises up on the raker side, turning around the hinge point, which stays on the guide bar. Like in #2 above, they let the raker rise up exactly as high as the leading edge of the cutter, so that both points have the same height above the guide bar.
Now look at the pics above: On the left side a new cutter, on the right side a more than half worn cutter. They claim both having a raker depth of 0.027".
Fake news 
You can prove, that the two explained points have the same height on the right cutter. And you see that the left and right cutter have the same 'attack position'. That is not possible.
When having the same raker depth and the same height for raker tip and cutter tip related to the guide bar, then the attack position on the right side would have to be lower than on the left side (more attack on left side).
So how can this be? Very simple: Look at the right picture. Obviously the cutter on the right side has NOT the same raker depth than the one on the left side. It has a way lower raker, the one a progressive gauge like the FOP produces when the cutter is filed back.
They argue against themselves at this point!
Further down they say: "The theory behind the progressive method is, to increase the depth gauge setting as the cutter is filed back to compensate for the fact that as the leading edge crosses the hinge point of the rear rivet it will tip up less than when new and eventually will tip away from the wood". What a monster of a sentence...
And clearly wrong in my opinion.
It´s the other way round. The more depth gauge you allow (lower raker), the more the cutter can rise up, the more agressive is the 'attack position', the more the leading edge of the cutter gets more and more towards the hinge point.
So towards the end of the chain´s life a 'decreasing' / left alone depth gauge setting would help to stay away from the critical 'hinge point', not an increasing one!
What I think the truth is, and I don´t get it why they didn´t show it that way: "A progressive gauge maintains the 'attack position' during cutter wearing. A constant depth gauge leads to a 'attack position' with less and less attack during cutter wearing. Towards the end the progressive depth gauges lead to a slightly decreasing 'attack angle' by its design, which is desireable because of the 'hinge point' argument."
Very interesting: Further down in the text, they show cutter #1, #2 and #3 in their normal position, they don´t compare the three ones in their corresponding attack position. You now know why, you would detect the fake.
Strange approach, the hinge point thing. They didn´t use the true argument with the maintained attack angle and on the other side they tried to show the FOP´s strength dealing with the hinge point, but obviously it´s the other way round than they showed it.
And BTW: I only showed now their wrong argumentation. Another problem is the hinge point concept itself. If this is really true, what does that mean?
Clearly there is a usable part of the cutter towards the end of life point, that sits already behind the hinge point with zero attack position. And there is a part of the cutter near the hinge point, which goes behind the hinge point even when having only small attack. In their argumentation this now means that maybe the last quarter of the chain can´t be used, because the cutter tip goes behind the hinge point and tips away from the wood. I don´t think that this is the case in reality.
Strange. In my opinion their manual has so much truth in it, many things are explained extra ordinary well. And especially regarding the rakers, they chose a very strange (and in my opinion wrong) argumentation, leaving out the real advantage of a progressive approach.
I suspect the following: They wanted to show something that you can easy comprehend by a figurative manner. They chose the analogy of the 'see-saw' by purpose. So you can imagine something.
In their explanations they only speak of 'depth', they never speak of 'angles'. Maybe they think that an angle is a more complex 'item' than a distance?

My point here is not to bash Carlton. My point is, that we probably won´t be capable of quantifying something at this point.
I have the feeling that we stay in the empirical corner here.
It seems rather difficult to explain and quantify 'why EXACTLY' a constant cutting angle concept may be more appropriate and better working than a constant depth concept.
Carlton at least couldn´t convince me 
That has to do with the pictures above #1 - #3, the black box. Too many variables. I don´t think that it is possible to find out more with my / our methods. Maybe complex computer simulations with many parameters and variables could help. And lab tests under controlled circumstances.
I personally kicked in, like I said several times, at a certain point not questioning the past.
For me a constant angle approach seems to fit and work in reality, so I personally aim for (rather) constant angles.
I own a worn out chain on its limit, I filed down the rakers according to my gauge type 2, it works.
And I never heard some of the 'real constant angles - DAF' party complaining about a chain not working because of the hinge point problem.
Best quote of Carlton´s manual regarding rakers: "The most misunderstood part of a saw chain is the depth gauge". Yes. That was even proved by themselves....
So if even Carlton is not able to explain that stuff right, how could I ?
So I stay by purpose with the 'my preference' approach.
"I use method A because it works better for me than method B. I don´t fully understand why method A is better than B, but if it works better for me, maybe I don´t care that much about the 'why' ".

Maybe someone of you can bring light into my darkness... As I said, maybe I simply misunderstand Carlton´s point here.


----------



## HarleyT (May 22, 2018)

I always knew that those bastards were totally corrupt!!!!


----------



## HarleyT (May 22, 2018)

Keep fighting the "GOOD Fight"!!!!!


----------



## 46 Poulan (May 22, 2018)




----------



## Westboastfaller (May 22, 2018)

I'm stumbling on you post, WTF happened to "litle bits"lol

I'll make one point
..OK they start with the perfect design (New Chain) If they 'could' match the cutting angle degree from new, to the rivot, they would! ..or why would they make it that way?Unfortunately they have a cutter getting lower, as well retreating back from the driver. Then they have a third change as the angle changes through the raker slot. Its impossible to duplicate what they started with, without losing the simplicity, among other things.
Sure they could have an extendable as well a few plates you slide up with your thump to bump the height on the tooth. It would be pretty easy yo make but It would be like surgery for most to use. Carlton said 45 thou is the max their gauge can do. Stihl was at 42 thou. I believe Calton said either
58 thou or 63 on the back of the rivot?. I suppose it's 'better',
Beter for them if the chain is 'under- rakered' at that stage of its life.


----------



## hannes69 (May 23, 2018)

46 Poulan said:


>


Yes, the whole topic of 'maintaining the correct raker depth' and whole of this thread here is a  topic. Maybe we should move it more in the direction of  or  ??? Aaah, forgot it, that´s HarleyT´s job already


----------



## hannes69 (May 23, 2018)

Westboastfaller said:


> I'm stumbling on you post, WTF happened to "litle bits"lol


"little bits" was yesterday, today it´s time for the "full load" 



Westboastfaller said:


> OK they start with the perfect design (New Chain) If they 'could' match the cutting angle degree from new, to the rivot, they would!


I´m not so sure what Carlton exactly tried to achieve. I mean, what they REALLY tried to achieve and not how they tried to explain it. I assume in reality they tried to maintain the cutting angle / attack position and for strange reasons they decided not to communicate that point but focused on the side stage of 'hinge point'.


----------



## Westboastfaller (May 23, 2018)

hannes69 said:


> I´m not so sure what Carlton exactly tried to achieve. I mean, what they REALLY tried to achieve and not how they tried to explain it. I assume in reality they tried to maintain the cutting angle / attack position and for strange reasons they decided not to communicate that point but focused on the side stage of 'hinge point'.


My buddy had a saw shop and they sent out all that stuff.
They are well versed in "The Kiss method.
Its all about covering your azz too.
They have more scare tactics than Dr Oz..lol
As I said, a lot of emphasis on going easy on the rakers and hook as they said it would pound your rails out. and is dangerous (true) " The worst of both worlds" doing it together was their words. They want to see text book filing. 10° up into the leading edge.
Of course a simple analogy to send to shop owners to pass on to customers. Its simple to understand. They say the progressive will work 100% but that's only to the pivot and that where the expectations stops on that chain.






Hannes said:
"I read all of it in the hope that it makes some things regarding raker depth clearer, I clearly failed."

∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆
Regardless of what you get out or it,
Targeting either hardwood or softwood gauge cutting angles is correct up to the neutral position of the cutter pivot anyway.
It doesn't confront your original objective, as that was using the full chain with even teeth.
As I said in one of my first post after I understood the mechanics of how your gauge worked and that was, you could free hand a few extra flat strokes at that point.
I never really paid attention to the last three read outs of your data anyway knowing I would have uneven teeth.
I'm sure they said its about double (0.63 thou is what I remember?). that would be needed on the 'back of the rivot'. Assuming that's a soft setting. I did an estimation on where I thought was the neutral position of your read out and it looks to be about .053 for hard. Unofficially but it's double +3 on each.
You can figure out what it really is. What is 005" difference on the gauge between hard and soft setting is in reality, .010"+ on the chip difference.

In short: A new chain will set at it's raker depth and dive an additional 100% over its depth in attack mode (About 1/16" chips. In total. The only place where there is Zero diving is the pinical pivot point (Neutral) where " gauged cutting angle" and attack cutting angle are "one of the same". In reality 100% gauge chips vs 0 attack chips

^^^ Edit on end


----------



## Philbert (May 23, 2018)

hannes69 said:


> Yes, the whole topic of 'maintaining the correct raker depth' and whole of this thread here is a topic


What is your opinion of the depth gauge profile? Is it included in your software calculations or assumptions?

(_I will try to make this post as long as possible to fit in the spirt of this thread)._

Most chain is manufactured with rounded cutters that will slide across the wood at any angle of contact. When people file or grind the depth gauges flat, it can create a sharp point of contact, with may dig deeper into the wood; increase drag; or act as a leverage point, effectively working as a higher depth gauge.

Most sharpening guides will say something like, "_after adjusting depth gauge height, round over the depth gauge to match the factory profil_e". But a lot of guys don't.

(_add some random text here to make this post long enough for this thread_).
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Philbert


----------



## PogoInTheWoods (May 23, 2018)

Wouldn't that typically be when using a grinder or fixed depth gauge tool that indeed leaves a flat depth gauge? 

I don't worry about the 'profile' with a progressive adjustment tool as the angle of the tool determines the profile, albeit still a 'flat' one, but at the angle of the tool. I personally wouldn't waste time going back over every depth gauge again just to give it a rounded front when using a progressive tool for the adjustment. Plus, one bad swipe with a file affecting an already perfect raker height and you'd hafta shorten the tooth to match, and then shorten every other one to match, and then...


----------



## PogoInTheWoods (May 23, 2018)

Rounded cutters?


----------



## Westboastfaller (May 23, 2018)

Hannes quotes & talks about Carlton" theory below.....

...."The theory behind the progressive method is, to increase the depth gauge setting as the cutter is filed back to compensate for the fact that as the leading edge crosses the hinge point of the rear rivet it will tip up less than when new and eventually will tip away from the wood". What a monster of a sentence..."

Its a monster of a statement because its doesn't just happen entering the neutral zone, its not in preparation for that moment... Lol
It's compensating the whole time. From the second file.

"And clearly wrong in my opinion.
It´s the other way round. The more depth gauge you allow (lower raker), the more the cutter can rise up, the more agressive is the 'attack position', "

Poorly worded as I pointed out but they are saying the same thing "increase the depth as cutter wears back"?? No??

the more the leading edge of the cutter gets more and more towards the hinge point.
So towards the end of the chain´s life a 'decreasing' / left alone depth gauge setting would help to stay away from the critical 'hinge point', not an increasing one!

IDK something poorly worded again? Technically yes but it still needs more raker.
As a decreasing raker is not an option as it finishes at 100% raker cut.

What I think the truth is, and I don´t get it why they didn´t show it that way: "A progressive gauge maintains the 'attack position' during cutter wearing. A constant depth gauge leads to a 'attack position' with less and less attack during cutter wearing. Towards the end the progressive depth gauges lead to a slightly decreasing 'attack angle' by its design,

Over thinking it. What was their choice man? They don't have a choice
Its a flat plate on an angle with things changing. Its not a perfect system and its not superior. Don't even entertain that idea, its ridiculous."


----------



## Philbert (May 23, 2018)

PogoInTheWoods said:


> I don't worry about the 'profile' with a progressive adjustment tool as the angle of the tool determines the profile, albeit still a 'flat' one, but at the angle of the tool.



*Big* assumption. 

Off by a fraction of a degree, and the leading edge catches on a sharp corner, instead of the flat. 

Plus, the cutter rocks in the cut, so the depth gauge will make contact at different points through the cut. 

Philbert


----------



## PogoInTheWoods (May 23, 2018)

OK. What am I missing? And what is being assumed?

I would contend that attempting to round over the leading edge of a depth gauge has a much greater probability of being 'off' by a fraction of a degree than simply filing in a diagonally downward fashion along the specific angle established by a progressive type tool..., in reference to the cutter, of course.

Just arbitrarily rounding off the leading edge of a raker with no reference point whatsoever provides nothing even remotely resembling precision within 'a fraction of a degree' in the resulting profile.


----------



## Westboastfaller (May 23, 2018)

Hannes continued........
......
"I accept the principles they´re showing here and maybe they reflect reality. #1 - #2 - #3 is a black box though. We know that this all happens 'more or less' as shown, but we don´t know exactly.
It surely depends on raker depth, sharpness of the cutter, chain speed, saw power and torque, chain tension, cutter shape, wood type,....
What´s my point: I don´t think we can quantify here anything. "All depends on everything..."

Yes a lot of variables, as it was just said the shape, they will also chatter if they are flat and badly affect your depth when they get very flat, low and long. Its why it's a lot of work when they get low.

Another point, with the dogs, the chain can't come off the bar.
With the longer bars you can see the chain getting pulled off if its a little loose when I start an angled falling cut without the dogs. Just about a 5 inch section gets pulled out. so you get a lot of different tention throughout the bar. The ends being much tighter so this may also account for different chips and slightly different mechanics going on.


----------



## Westboastfaller (May 23, 2018)

PogoInTheWoods said:


> OK. What am I missing? And what is being assumed?
> 
> I would contend that attempting to round over the leading edge of a depth gauge has a much greater probability of being 'off' by a fraction of a degree than simply filing in a diagonally downward fashion along the specific angle established by a progressive type tool..., in reference to the cutter, of course.
> 
> Just arbitrarily rounding off the leading edge of a raker with no reference point whatsoever provides nothing even remotely resembling precision within 'a fraction of a degree' in the resulting profile.


 its a different angle.
Anyway I always do that before I put the gauge on eack tooth or at least before I file so there is wiggle room.
Kind of kill two birds with one stone as a get the material down quickly without the gauge and shape the front.


----------



## PogoInTheWoods (May 23, 2018)

_Precise_ 'wiggle room' within a fraction of a degree I presume? LOL

Just when it seemed like this was getting into a more practical realm there's new hair splitting over fractions of degrees..., regarding a raker's profile no less.

I would have thought Philbert was just tossing some levity into the mix had it not been for that large, bold emphasis about my assumption..., which I'm still attempting to determine.


----------



## Philbert (May 23, 2018)

PogoInTheWoods said:


> OK. What am I missing? And what is being assumed?


You are assuming the angle of contact. or at least initial contact, for the depth gauge (apologize for the crappy sketch, but I don't have a lot of time; give me some leeway on the proportions, angles, etc.).

Your expected point of contact should lie along your intended angle, but a rounded profile will not dig in (or scrape as much) as the cutter rocks, or if it makes contact with the wood at a different angle, if the wood is soft, etc..

'Splitting hairs' about degrees, since the discussion has been about tenths of a degree over a very short distance: lot of 'hair splitting' in there too.

Philbert


----------



## Philbert (May 23, 2018)

Westboastfaller said:


> With the longer bars you can see the chain getting pulled off if its a little loose when I start an angled falling cut without the dogs. Just about a 5 inch section gets pulled out. so you get a lot of different tention throughout the bar.


Spoke with an Oregon engineer once, and he told me that the average user would not believe how far the cutters get pulled out of the bar groove during normal cutting.

Philbert


----------



## PogoInTheWoods (May 23, 2018)

I believe the initial angle of contact is determined by the adjustment obtained from using the tool as intended..., (be it a point of an angle or a tip of an arc) at the highest point on the depth gauge allowed by the tool. No assumption there. Whether or not the desired functionality is obtained can certainly be assumed to be dependent on many factors having far greater influence than the arc (or angle) of the depth gauge. I'm not arguing that the arc on the leading edge is irrelevant, but rather just not as critical of a parameter to fret over when using the progressive style tool since it creates its own degree of 'wiggle room' by the very nature of the angle used to adjust the depth gauge in the first place. Fixed tool adjustments would most definitely benefit from some shaping to the leading edge of the depth gauge. No question about that.


----------



## Westboastfaller (May 23, 2018)

PogoInTheWoods said:


> _Precise_ 'wiggle room' within a fraction of a degree I presume? LOL
> 
> 
> .


Lol
That's just how good I am..lol
Now if I could only keep my chains running straight.

Hey, do you remember that time?.... That time when you got mad at me?
No, I wasn't serious. just tired, dry British antics. We will just call it 'dryantits' They say you can tell an Englishman,.....but... You can't tell 'em much..lol
IDK..if I've ever been ripped like that but I laughter my azz off ...every time I read it.


----------



## hannes69 (May 23, 2018)

Westboastfaller said:


> They are well versed in "The Kiss method.
> Its all about covering your azz too.
> They have more scare tactics than Dr Oz..lol
> [...]
> Of course a simple analogy to send to shop owners to pass on to customers. Its simple to understand.


Okay... There you deliver a simple explanation for the given facts, and probably you are true  Maybe I had a liitle bit too much respect for Carlton and didn´t consider enough what HarleyT says about them 



Westboastfaller said:


> Targeting either hardwood or softwood gauge cutting angles is correct up to the neutral position of the cutter pivot anyway.


Yeah, still my assumption 



Westboastfaller said:


> A new chain will set at it's raker depth and dive an additional 100% over its depth in attack mode (About 1/16" chips. In total. The only place where there is Zero diving is the pinical pivot point (Neutral) where " gauged cutting angle" and attack cutting angle are "one of the same". In reality 100% gauge chips vs 0 attack chips


Hmm, can you explain this in other words once again please? Where do these numbers come from? 100% over its depth / 1/16" chips?
Chips - reminds me of one approach: I never measured chips, could be interesting


----------



## hannes69 (May 23, 2018)

Philbert said:


> What is your opinion of the depth gauge profile? Is it included in your software calculations or assumptions?


Depth gauge profile has an influence on cutting performance, yes. If the profile is not on a very extreme side (angle 0° or negative angle or extreme positive angle) it should not have a very large impact.
The shape itself can´t be covered by the depth gauge tool in its simple form and of course not by my software calculations.
I´ve made some thoughts about the raker angle though.
The progressive gauges type 1 and 2 deliver a starting raker angle of 18° for a new chain and 10° for the end of life chain (3/8 RM Stihl). Stihl recommends an angle of 10°, this is printed on their chain box.
Because the selfmade gauges aren´t that hype at the moment, I did not show even further development possibilities.
Because you´re bringing the topic up here, I show one possibility:



As always, advantages and disadvantages:
+ you can influence the raker angle
+ you can overcome the type 2 tool disadvantage of 'fixed' material thickness (by using a certain angle and knee point)
- the calculator gets more complicated
- you have to make a knee into the metal, which should be rather accurate (maybe difficult to make with normal tools), for industrial manufacturing it should be no problem



Philbert said:


> _I will try to make this post as long as possible to fit in the spirt of this thread_


You know something about the spirit of this thread? Tell me more about this topic, could be interesting.


----------



## hannes69 (May 23, 2018)

Westboastfaller said:


> he more the leading edge of the cutter gets more and more towards the hinge point.
> So towards the end of the chain´s life a 'decreasing' / left alone depth gauge setting would help to stay away from the critical 'hinge point', not an increasing one!
> 
> IDK something poorly worded again? Technically yes but it still needs more raker.
> As a decreasing raker is not an option as it finishes at 100% raker cut.


Very poor wording then... And there remains the contradiction in my opinion: You need more raker depth setting towards the end of chain´s life to maintain the cutting angle / attack angle, but on the other side it´s exactly the more raker depth setting that brings the cutter´s leading edge behind the hinge point in attack position. 
I only ride on this point because a) PogoInTheWoods brought up this argument and b) Carlton makes false explanations to this topic and even show wrong pictures by purpose on the wrong place.
I´m not very convinced of the hinge point / see-saw topic... At least as long as nobody can´t explain it better to me than Carlton did in their manual.


----------



## PogoInTheWoods (May 23, 2018)

I thought the see-saw illustration was very simple to understand. Even though the attack position is 'assumed' as the tooth _angles_ upward after being shortened beyond the pivot point of the rivet itself, the _cutter_ itself literally drops downward to create the upward cutting angle. My way of thinking would require a more severe raker adjustment at that stage of tooth length to allow the cutter any chance of grabbing a chip..., which is pretty much what Carlton states, or at least what I perceived their explanation to conclude.

I actually experienced that very situation yesterday while bucking a large storm blow down at my neighbor's house. 28" bar and chain setup with distinctly different length teeth on either side of the chain. Not dramatic, but distinct enough to be obvious. I started with a fresh grind and raker adjustment with the shorter teeth being right at that critical pivot point. I was cutting fine for the majority of the log when I either hit something in the wood or got into a real nasty rot spot that immediately dulled the chain. This resulted in the saw also beginning to cut on an angle after cutting perfectly straight up until then. My guess was that the shorter cutters were so close to that point of diminishing capability (relative to the pivot point) that the fragile tolerance at that juncture had simply been exceeded allowing the longer teeth to dominate.

Fast forward to the results of a new grind on both sides of the chain and corresponding raker adjustment. This grind clearly took the shorter teeth beyond the pivot point, but without _additional_ compensation for the depth gauge height. The saw would not cut straight to save its ass. If I wouldn't have been under a time constraint, I would have taken another couple of passes on the short teeth rakers just to see what would happen. I'm pretty sure the cut would have straightened out somewhat. Perhaps not all the way, but I believe a detectable correction would have been realized. I _don't _believe that _lengthening_ the rakers on the shorter cutters would have had any such effect, but rather quite the contrary.

As time and opportunity permit, I still intend to over adjust the raker height on this particular chain to observe the results. This is certainly as close as I'll conveniently (and quite coincidentally) get to an ideal chance for testing the theory in a practical application. Not that I'm recommending anything here, just that a couple more swipes of the rakers on the short side will undoubtedly provide one conclusion or another. Just need another handy 24" log or maybe a sacrificial round from my neighbor to give the particular method a try. I'll certainly post any useful results.

Another interesting observation while adjusting the rakers on this particular chain, which I believe is Oregon LG:

Projecting the angle of the Husky depth gauge tool used in the 'hard' position would line up almost perfectly with the far tie strap rivet as would be the case with a Type 2 tool. The 'soft' position would line up with the closer rivet in the same way. Hmmmm.

Still looking for a convenient and economical source of shim stock or tempered flat stock to experiment with a couple of Type 2's.


----------



## Huskybill (May 24, 2018)

When the chain starts to cut more saw dust I eye ball the rakers and make two or three passes with the flat file. I don’t use a raker gauge.


----------



## Westboastfaller (May 24, 2018)

Westboastfaller said:


> ∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆
> .
> You can figure out what it really is. What is 005" difference on the gauge between hard and soft setting is in reality, .010"+ on the chip difference.
> 
> ...





hannes69 said:


> Hmm, can you explain this in other words once again please? Where do these numbers come from? 100% over its depth / 1/16" chips?
> Chips - reminds me of one approach: I never measured chips, could be interesting


Sure.
The only way I would know how to come up with how much more a new chain would dive over its initial raker depth CONTACT HEIGHT would be to start at the neutral position and calculate the depth at the same cutting angle.
(6.3° hardwood example)
I can get really close as in your data read out in your OP it shows your gauge is almost perfectly in que through what looks to be that neutral area of cutter wear.
I estimated it to be between 53- .054"
So the formula doubles basically.
.025 new chain = .053 measured at the centre of the see-saw (neutral )
An additional .028" dive over the raker setting of a new chain to equal to .053"
Its starting off basically at a1:1 ratio.
100%+ increase
.025" raker depth = .053 chip
I said 0.63 for softwood which is the number I'm certain Carlton had given years back. It seems to fall right in line.
.125" being 1/8.
So that's about 1/16" chip in a perfect world.

Stihl hard setting came in at .042 max and I made a few estimates from your OP
..Like about .013" short. roughly 25% raker depth los.
Your gauge doesn't have really any los to speak of in that same wear zone. Possible just 2- 3 % depth los.

If Carlton's .027- .047" max is based on hard setting then they are much tighter than stihl gauge on Stihl RM.


----------



## Westboastfaller (May 24, 2018)

Using the third rivet top or centre with a straight edge (raker file) in the event of no raker gauge is an old trick BTW Hannes & Pogo^^^
A Faller about 5yrs younger taught me that one in 2007 when we partnered up.


----------



## Philbert (May 24, 2018)

Westboastfaller said:


> .025" raker depth = .053 chip
> I said 0.63 for softwood which is the number I'm certain Carlton had given years back. It seems to fall right in line.
> .125" being 1/8.
> So that's about 1/16" chip in a perfect world.


How about the power of the saw? Does that factor into the optimal chip size?
A more powerful saw could pull larger chips, while a less powerful saw would optimize performance with thinner chips.

Philbert


----------



## Huskybill (May 24, 2018)

Look down the bar/chain from the front, at the raker depth. I sharpen my chains with a file n guide. I make the same passes on each tooth. So there pretty much even. So two or three passes on each raker with a flat file is pretty much my rule of thumb.

I can pretty much gap ignition points at .020” too. Close enough so it will run.


----------



## hannes69 (May 24, 2018)

PogoInTheWoods said:


> I thought the see-saw illustration was very simple to understand. Even though the attack position is 'assumed' as the tooth _angles_ upward after being shortened beyond the pivot point of the rivet itself, the _cutter_ itself literally drops downward to create the upward cutting angle. My way of thinking would require a more severe raker adjustment at that stage of tooth length to allow the cutter any chance of grabbing a chip..., which is pretty much what Carlton states, or at least what I perceived their explanation to conclude.


I think it´s easy to understand what they mean, but it´s poorly explained in my opinion.
The following pictures show my new designed cutter, until now only the parts concerning the raker depth gauge tool were accurate, now I measured more or less accurately the rest of the cutter and now can work with this info in my CAD program. 
First the attack position for a 25 mil raker, the cutter is filed back to the hinge point.



The leading edge is now behind the hinge point and still barely touching the wood. Because of the initial raker depth setting of 25 mil we have a small attack angle of course.

Now the same cutter with a 6.3° cutting angle raker settting:



Now a higher attack angle, the leading edge is allowed to get farther behind the hinge point and so starts to point down. 
The leading edge goes away from the wood - bad, but we have more attack - good. With a higher raker as shown above it´s vice versa. More or less. 
Is this what Carlton wanted to say? If so, it was poorly explained for me. And still I don´t get why they ride on this aspect and don´t explain the huge advantage of a progressive gauge to better maintain the attack angle and the chain´s performance through its life.
And they speak of this effect here starting at about half cutter´s wearing. A little bit exaggerated I think. With normal cutting angles, the leading edge gets behind the hinge point for the last quarter of the cutter according to my measurements.
Interesting: the marking for the end ofl life point of my Stihl RM chain is positioned only at a very small distance behind the hinge point (~30 mil). In this area you have the hinge point problem and of course the rest material of the cutter gets into the region where the cutter could break.



PogoInTheWoods said:


> As time and opportunity permit, I still intend to over adjust the raker height on this particular chain to observe the results.


Do that and please report back about your findings 



PogoInTheWoods said:


> Still looking for a convenient and economical source of shim stock or tempered flat stock to experiment with a couple of Type 2's.


Yeah, it´s time that you find some material, you keep my hopes up for the gauge tool presentation party


----------



## hannes69 (May 24, 2018)

Westboastfaller said:


> The only way I would know how to come up with how much more a new chain would dive over its initial raker depth CONTACT HEIGHT would be to start at the neutral position and calculate the depth at the same cutting angle.
> (6.3° hardwood example)


Thanks!
I invested some time in thinking over this whole topic, meditated over Carlton´s pictures (  ) and made some experiments in my CAD software with my virtual Stihl cutter.
Combining all this with your statement above I came to the following pictures and thoughts.

1. 


I hope I did understand your statement right. We see teh hinge point, the axis through it, the neutral point, a new cutter, a raker depth setting of 25 mil and a 6.3° cutting angle for the filed back cutter. 
When measuring the corresponding raker depth setting for the filed back cutter, I get a value of 57 mil.

2.



Now I try to simply do exactly that, what Carlton´s pictures show. In #2 the raker lifts up, until its tip has the same niveau above the bar like the cutter´s leading edge. The cutter and the raker both dive into the wood.
And, of course, the cutting angle in the previous picture showing up between raker and cutter´s tip now shows up exactly at the bottom of the cutter, between cutter and bar.
The cutter is in attack position and the raker penetrates the wood as well, which should be the case according to Carlton.

3.



Now the copy of Carlton´s #3. The cutter lifts off the bar until its parallel to the bar.
Now we see the size of the chip. When measuring this, I get a value of 54 mil. More or less the same like in pic 1, your approach 

Now two pictures with the same scenario, but with the cutter filed back to the neutral position.






The chip size remains the same 
If that´s all right, many circles will close for me.
This would mean the evidence for the 'constant cutting angle' concept. 
The cutting angle when filing rakers stays constant. The attack angle / attack position of the raker remains constant. The chip size remains constant. 
But all fo this is only true and a given if the pictures above and the corrersponding assumptions show up like that in reality.
I must confess: I personally have some difficulties in understanding setups containing moving elements and / or three dimensional aspects. I like two dimensional projections and still standing setups so you can work with lengths and angles. The movement makes things complicated. E.g. an angle becomes a torque... 
I mean: Carlton made the pictures #1 - #3 like that. I´m not so sure if it is really like shown. 
To completely understand the course of things, I would have to know:

- #2: Why rises the raker exactly up to the leading edge of the cutter? Could the raker hang below this point and #3 starts already (maybe NO penetration of the raker?)
- #3: Why rises the cutter up to the point until the cutter is parallel to the bar? Could it stop below the parallel point? 
- after #3: where/why/when is the process finished, the chip has formed? By what is the chip length determined?

Would be a great help for me to understand that in more detail. 
Though having some math skills and understanding of physical things, I have some weaknesses in imagination of kinematics I think. 



Westboastfaller said:


> I said 0.63 for softwood which is the number I'm certain Carlton had given years back. It seems to fall right in line.


Yes  0.063 for softwood according to Carlton, the 0.054 of the hardwood example here should fit


----------



## hannes69 (May 24, 2018)

Westboastfaller said:


> Using the third rivet top or centre with a straight edge (raker file) in the event of no raker gauge is an old trick BTW Hannes & Pogo^^^
> A Faller about 5yrs younger taught me that one in 2007 when we partnered up.


Different brains can come to the same solutions


----------



## hannes69 (May 24, 2018)

Philbert said:


> How about the power of the saw? Does that factor into the optimal chip size?


I think so 
The optimal chip size is that one, that keeps the saw running at the max power rev point 
Way too big chips and the saw bogs down, way too small chips you produce a powder cloud.
This problem partly compensates itself I think. A large powerful saw is probabyle used with a longer bar, a small weak saw with a shorter bar. Small saw, less power, less teeth cutting at thesame time / large saw, more power, more teeth cutting at the same time.
Of course the raker depth gauges kick in here. When cutting very hard wood with a very small saw and a too big bar, it´s a good idea to work with smaller cutting angles. And a big saw with a short abr cutting very soft wood can surely work with large cutting angles producing big chips.


----------



## Westboastfaller (May 25, 2018)

hannes69 said:


> Very poor wording then... And there remains the contradiction in my opinion: You need more raker depth setting towards the end of chain´s life to maintain the cutting angle / attack angle, but on the other side it´s exactly the more raker depth setting that brings the cutter´s leading edge behind the hinge point in attack position.
> I only ride on this point because a) PogoInTheWoods brought up this argument and b) Carlton makes false explanations to this topic and even show wrong pictures by purpose on the wrong place.
> .


 Very true and poorly worded if they said more raker to maintain it beyond the rivet. No option can maintain it as its gone.
The gauge compensates more and more until it's 100% responsible for the depth. You are right as its a combination of a reduced tooth AND the increased raker depth creating a higher attack angle that makes it drop down further.
Their point is it can be overcome with more raker BUT the gauge only has the capability of delivering .047"
...And they promote the use of a gauge only.
They say you would need .063 (I believe they said)
They are saying.....The gauge can not balance this or can it deliver the depth needed as well a chain is incapable or cutting correctly with uneven teeth and it have diferent dynamics so its time for a new chain.

The dynamics are far different as to how it takes the chip. Don't think of it as knocking itself out of the cut but going forward and cutting itself on a down angle tapering the chip on its way to the open cerf. The resistance would be considerably reduced. If you're cutting in a max power range then my saws would be cutting at 60 kmph or 36mph.
Round filing chisel chain forces the chip down the gullet and forward until the chip breaks. Think of it as trying to snap something. The greator the angle, the more force needed.
Behind the rivet, the cutter is moving down with the chip as it moves forward and the chip thins to nothing. The cutter is also not as wide anymore. (Prehaps to compensate with a weaker neck?) With all the teeth the same, then a very low raker to start and a larger sprocket; this has been used for racing.


----------



## Westboastfaller (May 25, 2018)

Philbert said:


> How about the power of the saw? Does that factor into the optimal chip size?
> A more powerful saw could pull larger chips, while a less powerful saw would optimize performance with thinner chips.
> 
> Philbert


 well if its bucking or felling, then a saw should glide through the cut opposed to chomping through the wood.
Even with .030" and a hook, you may get that affect in most species I've cut. Anything more on big power would seem to be on the outside end of optimal. If its not pulling your arms off then it may drop below you max torque speed.

For argument sakes, you could reduce the hook with a bit more raker. May be the best "chips size to resistance"


----------



## Huskybill (May 25, 2018)

Open up the area where the grinder stopped when making the teeth. That step needs to be removed. The more room for the chip to curl the better. Then use the file n guide to sharpen the upper edge of the tooth.


----------



## PogoInTheWoods (May 25, 2018)

Get the gullet. Still need the outside cutting edge of the tooth, tho I'm sure someone somewhere would argue otherwise. LOL


----------



## Huskybill (May 25, 2018)

When we sharpen the inside of the tooth without the file guide below the upper cutter we sharpen the vertical side of the tooth too. Then with the file guide installed we now sharpen the total upper edge to the top of the vertical side too.

I noticed in the past just using the file guide alone we don’t always sharpen the top edge perfectly. It’s wavy sometimes on the top edge. With the file guide and the cutter fully hogged out now we file the upper edge perfect.

Once you try it you will see how much faster the chain cuts.


----------



## Philbert (May 25, 2018)

Huskybill said:


> When we sharpen the inside of the tooth without the file guide below the upper cutter we sharpen the vertical side of the tooth too. Then with the file guide installed we now sharpen the total upper edge to the top of the vertical side too.


Which file guide?

Philbert


----------



## Huskybill (May 25, 2018)

7/32” for 3/8” chain.


----------



## Philbert (May 25, 2018)

Philbert said:


> Which file guide?





Huskybill said:


> 7/32” for 3/8” chain.



Which model or brand of file guide?

Philbert


----------



## Huskybill (May 25, 2018)

I was using the Oregon one. But on the larger power heads I use a 1/4” file in the 7/32” guide for the top edge of the teeth.


----------



## Philbert (May 25, 2018)

One of the design features of this type of chain was to simplify sharpening, by allowing both the top plate and side plate cutting edges to be sharpened _at the same time_ with a round file.

https://patents.google.com/patent/US2622636
_"Another object of the invention is to provide a chain link embodying a cutting element that functions both as a side cutter and as a bottom router and whereby the arrangement is such that the operation of filing and sharpening is simplified;"_

There are many different designs of file guides, which fix one or more variable for consistent results on each cutter: 
- top plate cutting angle (typically 25° - 35°);
- top plate cutting bevel (typically around 60°);
- 'down angle' (typically 0° or 10°);
- cutter length;
etc.

If you want to file outside of the expected ranges (e.g. if you like a deeper 'hook' angle) you may not be able to sharpen both edges at the same time with some types of guides. Other guides, such as the Granberg styles, let you set all 4 of those variables (above). https://www.arboristsite.com/community/threads/granberg-file-n-joint-revisited.193630/

As long as you have a way that works for you, that is what is important.

Philbert


----------



## Westboastfaller (May 27, 2018)

PogoInTheWoods said:


> Get the gullet. Still need the outside cutting edge of the tooth, tho I'm sure someone somewhere would argue otherwise. LOL


Just under 1/16 on chisel or 1.5+mm.
Nevertheless! You could Polish the rest for aerodynamics and less coefficient of friction for chip roll
Semi or round/chipper chain is a different story.


----------



## Westboastfaller (May 28, 2018)

OK...I'm ready now!

What wrong here?
Stihl RM 3/8 cutter height from top of tie strap to leading edge of cutter
(13/64 or 5.2mm file) = .0246" (Hannes)

"Pogo's " RM 46, .404 (732 or 5.5mm file)
.039" = 1mm
5.75 mm


6×40 = .240 - 6 = 234 - 10 = 224

So the .404 uses a file 1/64 bigger yet its .022"...or about 1/50 lower cutter??
Pogo's seems correct to me.

I don't even think a new 3/8 RM will swallow a 7/32 file. (5.5mm)


----------



## hannes69 (May 28, 2018)

Westboastfaller said:


> OK...I'm ready now!
> What wrong here?


Maybe nothing´s wrong here, only a misunderstanding 

Here a pic of Stihl 3/8 RM chain, positioned in rectangular manner for measurements on the computer monitor.




The two red lines show the misunderstanding 
What I call 'cutter height' in the context of my software and the raker depth gauge tools is the distance between the leading edge of a new cutter and the landing point of the gauge tool type 1 (here in the middle of the follwing tie strap). I tried to find short names for the software, and so they are maybe partially misleading, couldn´t find a better short name...  
You see: the bottom of the cutter´s gullet has a much higher position relative to the 'bar' than the middle of the tie strap.
So the red line on the right measures indeed 246 mil. 
The red line on the left measures 205 mil. That means 5.2mm and that means using a 13/64" file 
Of course I don´t know, what measurement Pogo took exactly. And I don´t know the geometry of a .404 chain, I assume there are not only differences in the pitch itself but also in other dimensions. 
BTW look at the pic above, you see the tie strap has a ramp style, so there are differences in measurements depending on the position on the tie strap. For my example of the gauge tool type 1, the pivot point of the tool lands on the middle of the tie strap, so I took the measurement from there.


----------



## Westboastfaller (May 29, 2018)

hannes69 said:


> Maybe nothing´s wrong here, only a misunderstanding
> Àà
> Here a pic of Stihl 3/8 RM chain, positioned in rectangular manner for measurements on the computer monitor.
> 
> ...


Thnx..
Right, I was aware of that as you already straightened me out on that. I was looking at the illustration on page one that looks like the same height and got 'side tracked' as you would think I should know what a chain looks like by now 
Just lost my train of though as I started using file size for prespective once I converted his measurement back into thou then 'back to mm'.

Well that's a good thing then. Much better it be my mistake than yours.

I believe the raker to cutter distance was 9?? or was it 11?? thou more than the same run on the 3/8.
Now you wondered earlier in a post
about the only difference from the Husqvarna gauges softwood settings being the .404 was a little thinner than the 3/8.
I remember the thinner .404 gauge converted to about .003" more depth. I though then this possibly was the reason but then I saw It was a different style of gauge it brought doubt that they all are made that thin? would have to check it with the same style of Husky gauges that look like the .325 and 3/8 on this thread to know for certain?
So it looks like there is a .019" cutter height difference measured from the bottom of the gullet to top of cutter........ 13/64 vs 7/32 (14/64) difference of 1/64 file size.

Rounf 19 thou up to 20 thou gives you a 1/50 fraction.


*Edit bottom
I would believe the height difference is 1/64 and runs on the same 11.8°
They would loose raker height as the tooth is set back 9 thou from the raker but a gain as the higher cutter will reach higher in attach mode.


----------



## hannes69 (May 31, 2018)

Westboastfaller said:


> Now you wondered earlier in a post
> about the only difference from the Husqvarna gauges softwood settings being the .404 was a little thinner than the 3/8.


Here I show the numbers for the .404 Stihl chain, ASSUMING a cutter´s angle of 11.8° (I don´t have the measurement).
First, putting the Husky .404 gauge with soft setting onto it:




The soft setting seems to be suitable as hard setup, it´s too weak as soft setup I think.

Now the numbers for optimized type 1 and type 2 settings (hard setup / trying to maintain the initial cutting angle).

Type 1:


More or less the same behaviour comparfed to the 3/8 chain.

Type 2:


For the chain´s first half of life perfect behaviour, the second half is alittle bit worse compared to the 3/8 chain but very acceptable in my opinion.

So with the given assumption of the same cutter´s angle, the optimized raker depth tools seem to work for the .404 chain as well.
Would of course be nice to get the missing number, some measurements of a .325 chain and maybe a 3/8 chain other than Stihl


----------



## Westboastfaller (Jun 1, 2018)

Westboastfaller said:


> *Edit bottom
> I would believe the height difference is 1/64 and runs on the same 11.8°
> They would loose raker height as the tooth is set back 9 thou from the raker but a gain as the higher cutter will reach higher in attach mode.


 This is not right. I don't need 'those guys' to argue with. (Considered displaced!) 
Not a true statement.
As long as the raker depth is proportionate to the cutter height then the only things that will change the attack 'height' (depth) is the radius of the raker and the radius of the leading edge. BTW, the radius of the cutter (leading edge) may also vary with different chains? (Pivot to leading edge)

* You need to go to a saw shop and they will give you an assortment of short pieces from different NEW chains that are laying around. Very handy to have around when using a bar rail puller also.


----------



## hannes69 (Jun 1, 2018)

I try to make now some conclusions regarding the topic 'optimum cutting angle'.
When using Carlton´s pictures and argumentations, it seems that optimum cutting angle = constant cutting angle. Like I assumed from the beginning of this thread 
It´s only a matter of deciding the value of the cutting angle according to different parameters.
When you like to maintain the performance of a chain using an initial raker depth setting, you simply have to maintain the according cutting angle.
Using Carlton´s pics and assuming an according behaviour of the cutting chain, the corresponding calculations reveal this (attention, the table´s columns now show different entities than formerly):



'Attack depth' means the penetration depth of the cutter in the cutter´s attack position.
The chip size is the sum of the attack depth and the extra depth generated during the lifting off of the cutter.
In this case a 'cutting angle' of 6.3° is maintained through the cutter´s life.
We see: At ~270 mil cutter wearing the attack depth becomes negative. At 320 mil wearing the leading edge of the cutter is already positioned behind the hinge point before getting to the attack position, so no useful numbers for this position.
The chipsize is constant (54.1 - 54.7 mil).

Now the same table maintaining a cutting angle of 8.0°:



Same behaviour, the attack depth becomes more negative towards the end.
Remembering the softwood chip size Westboastfaller has delivered (according to Carlton) ? 63 mil? We´re in the same ballpark here.

Last table now, showing the chip size when putting the optimized gauge type 2 onto the Stihl 3/8 chain:




At this point I see consistency between Carlton´s argumentation and my numbers.

Many discussions here seem to make circles around the actual value of teh cutting angle that has to be taken, which influences we have, which parameters.
The theory regarding the 'optimal cutting angle' won´t answer this. In my opinion it only gives the direction to go for a constant value in order to maintain a given performance level. This level itself is a result of the personal setup with all possible parameters. My personal setup asks for a cutting angle of 7° when using Stihl RM 3/8 chain with my 034 S saw and the wood type I cut. 
I cut an elder tree these days in the garden, diameter 14 inches with my saw using a 16 inch bar. When bucking it, the saw had optimal performance when only using the saw´s weight; when pushing additionally, the saw started to bog and when pushing a little bit more the chain stopped to spin. The cut was always smooth. Exactly that is the behaviour I like, big chips only by the pressure out of the saw´s own weight. 
I´m satisfied with an angle of 7.0° as an 'all purpose' setting, like the Stihl RM chain. Maybe for certain purposes a RS chain would be better, or a different cutting angle, but I personally like the all purpose approach. You can´t go VERY wrong with a RM chain and a cutting angle of 7° in my opinion, regardless what´s your plan


----------



## Westboastfaller (Jun 4, 2018)

I never converted the "Type 1" until now .566" and .047"
This is surprising.
Much thicker and steeper than the Husqvarna gauges.
3/8, hard setting Stihl - 14.38mm
Material thickness 1.19 mm
-------------------------------------------------
".325 'Soft' Position -- 14.80mm
.325 'Hard' Position -- 19.00mm
Material Thickness -- .84mm

3/8 'Soft' Position -- 19.00mm
3/8 'Hard' Position -- 23.30mm
Material Thickness -- .84mm

.404 'Soft' Position -- 19.00mm
.404 'Hard' Position -- 22.00mm
Material Thickness -- .75mm"


hannes69 said:


> Here I show the numbers for the .404 Stihl chain, ASSUMING a cutter´s angle of 11.8° (I don´t have the measurement).
> First, putting the Husky .404 gauge with soft setting onto it:
> 
> View attachment 655263
> ...


You initially got 28.5 thou with the husky .404 gauge on the Stihl .404.
(19mm base to slot.)
The .325 hard & 3/8 soft also both (19mm) which came in at 6.3 ( .025" ) depth cutting angle with the Stihl 3/8 RM. (Pg 9)
The thickness difference of the .404 gauge is 3.5 thou which makes up the difference. (28.5 thou
The raker is further from the cutter slightly which accounts for a bit of a loss


I would assume the 3/8 Oregon chain will have a slightly closer raker and/or a slight bit more clearance from cutter to strap. It will come in a proper .030" with the thicker husky gauge. The .404 gauge would definitely be a good 'go to gauge' nearing the end.


----------



## Westboastfaller (Jun 4, 2018)

hannes69 said:


> Now the numbers for optimized type 1 and type 2 settings (hard setup / trying to maintain the initial cutting angle).


 So you are running them both to get the best possible numbers? What would stop the Stihl gauge of not being able to at least match the numbers if not exceed them as its not limited to the rivet.
I would have liked to see what the Stihl gauge would do on the taller cutter compared to the 3/8 Stihl.
Hard setting? Maybe in the middle.
Misunderstanding again?


----------



## Trx250r180 (Jun 5, 2018)

I just eyeball the cutter and let the wood tell me if it needs more off the rakes. Sorry i'm late Jamie.


----------



## hannes69 (Jun 11, 2018)

Westboastfaller said:


> I never converted the "Type 1" until now .566" and .047"
> This is surprising.
> Much thicker and steeper than the Husqvarna gauges.


Not so surprising I think 
You obviously can trade in 'pivot length' for 'material thickness' and vice versa.
Thicker material -> you have to go steeper for the same results.
Thinner material -> you have to go less steep for the same results.
So if you like to switch from .047" material to .033" material (the 0.84mm of teh Husky gauge) you simply have to change the pivot length from .566" to .750" in order to get similar numbers.

Results:

.047" and .566":




0.033" and .750":




The numbers are not identical but more or less the same.
A material thickness of 0.047" leads to a tool that is mechanically more robust than using 0.033" material. I see no (obvious) reason why Husqvarna used such a thin material (maybe it´s a standard material from their suppliers, who knows).



Westboastfaller said:


> So you are running them both to get the best possible numbers? What would stop the Stihl gauge of not being able to at least match the numbers if not exceed them as its not limited to the rivet.
> I would have liked to see what the Stihl gauge would do on the taller cutter compared to the 3/8 Stihl.
> Hard setting? Maybe in the middle.
> Misunderstanding again?


Maybe misunderstanding. The numbers for optimized type 1 and type 2 settings mean:
I want to show numbers independantly for the two different types of depth gauge tools (to still compare them). Optimized means: I want to use ONE setting and ONE tool. So no dual gauge. The initial angle of 6.8° should be maintained as well as possible and the depth gauge tool should start with this value when put onto a new chain. Of course you could allow some overshoot, then the result would be better for the end of life point of the chain and worse for the first half.
I assume with mentioning 'Stihl gauge' you mean 'type 1 gauge' ? I still don´t know what you mean with 'the taller cutter compared to 3/8 Stihl' ? I always use my Stihl 3/8 RM chain example, only at the beginning of this thread I showed some numbers for 3/8 Carlton low profile chain and later on theoretical numbers for a 'virtual' .404 chain. In all other cases I use the Stihl 3/8 RM chain.


----------



## davidpm (Feb 18, 2019)

I started reading this thread, but unfortunately it got fairly nasty fairly quickly, which was a bit unfare on the OP I think. He was just offering something, you're free to move on if you don't like it.

Anyway, I think the software is a good tool for determining the angle you want or need. I don't want to derail the OP's intent, but if making up the gauge is not practical for you, you can simply just draw it up on paper and check.

Just work out the angle you want from the OP's software, and then take the tangent of it. If you're not up on maths, there are tables for this stuff, or you can just google it (literally just type "tan 6 degrees" into the search bar and it will tell you, then invert this number ot get your 1 in ___ value to use for the ratio. Will work for any angle). Then just string out your chain along some useful reference (I used the tops of two teeth on the same side), and then see where the raker sits in relation to the line.

Maybe not practical for every day use, but for when you're doing a full refurb of your chain it might be useful of your normal method of setting the depths (i.e. 3 files per tank of fuel, or whatever you do).


----------



## PogoInTheWoods (Feb 18, 2019)

Not quite sure what you are trying to establish...., a variable for the formula or a parameter for making a gauge



davidpm said:


> Then just string out your chain along some useful reference (I used the tops of _*two teeth*_ on the same side), and then see where the raker sits in relation to the line.



Would that not simply represent the same approach (or obtain the same result) as using a center drop fixed depth tool? Using an additional tooth to determine the relationship of a raker to a different tooth seems to defeat the purpose of the progressive concept, especially if the two teeth are different lengths (heights). Granted, the variance would probably be negligible, but after all, this thread _has_ been unusually focused on splitting hairs..., Swedish ones at that! LOL

​


----------



## HarleyT (Feb 18, 2019)

Blonde hairs?


----------



## davidpm (Feb 18, 2019)

I don't think it would. It's just an analogue version of using the DAF that was shown in the other threads. If it was constant depth, the lower blue line wouldn't be angled, it would be parallel (i.e. like the lower red line in the image attached). Unless I'm misunderstanding you? 

The tops of the teeth are just a useful reference point, and I agree that all your teeth would need to be very close to the same height and length for this to be a useful reference. I know mine are because I recently spent some time ensuring this. You could just as easily use the bottoms or any other part that would notionally be parallel with the bar.


----------



## hannes69 (Feb 25, 2019)

davidpm said:


> He was just offering something, you're free to move on if you don't like it.


Yes, there were many people in this thread not liking my approach and they obviously didn´t move on 



davidpm said:


> Just work out the angle you want from the OP's software, and then take the tangent of it.


You can do it like that, but normally you don´t have to fiddle around with tangens or math when you want to know the angle. At least in Germany every pupil sitting the first time in a math class is obliged to own this tool called 'geometry triangle':





So after making your two lines you can simply measure the angle without doing calculations 



davidpm said:


> You could just as easily use the bottoms or any other part that would notionally be parallel with the bar.


Yes. I used a ruler as a 'bar' aligned with a piece of paper or my desk, then I made my measurements of the chain (sitting onto the ruler) itself.


----------



## davidpm (Feb 25, 2019)

hannes69 said:


> At least in Germany every pupil sitting the first time in a math class is obliged to own this tool called 'geometry triangle':



I have never seen that device before - we only ever used the round protractors here in Australia. But yes, if you can measure the angle directly, then go for it. However, if you wanted to be very precise with the angle for some reason (and some people are like this, including me ), this is possible with my ruler method. 

For example, the 1:10 ratio gives you an angle of 5.7° (atan(1/10), but if you wanted it to be exactly 6° for some reason, you can do the ratio at 1:9.51 rather than 1:10, which in my scenario would be 200mm horizontally and then 21mm vertically. The longer the distance the more precise you can get.

But good job on the tool, I need to spend some more time going through it in detail. I got sidetracked by solving my blunt chain issues with other solutions - turns out it probably wasn't the chain at all.


----------



## HarleyT (Feb 25, 2019)

davidpm said:


> I got sidetracked by solving my blunt chain issues with other solutions - turns out it probably wasn't the chain at all.



Now we have to hear/see this story!!! 

You can't just let this go by.....


----------



## davidpm (Feb 25, 2019)

HarleyT said:


> Now we have to hear/see this story!!!
> 
> You can't just let this go by.....



I don't want to derail this thread, but basically I gave my saw (stihl ms 362) a proper clean and a bit of a maintain, especially blowing out the air filters. I think this alone has made a huge difference in the power I'm now getting to the chain (felt slugging before in comparison). I think the oiler was clogged with dust as well, so cleaned all that out. These alone made a huge difference. 

It's cutting a bit one way, but at least it is now cutting, and mostly blowing shavings out the back rather than dust. Previously, it would barely scratch the super hard, old, dead wood I am trying to cut for firewood. On inspection I think this is the bar rather than the chain as the chain recently got a refurbish to ensure all the teeth were more or less the same. There are some distinct burrs and uneven wear on the rails. I've given it a file down and will see how it performs.


----------



## HarleyT (Feb 25, 2019)

At least put up a pic of your cutters...

This thread could use a little real life examples....

Sometimes a redneck beats a protractor/slide-rule/ computer....


----------



## Mike Kunte (Jun 27, 2019)

Wow! 
As they say in the classics: "That escalated quickly!". Anyway, I managed to fight my way through the first 16 pages of this thread, and could not go on listening to the bickering. Sheesh!!!! Get a room!

Anyway, I have a question for Hannes - and the answer may lie in the 7 prevoious pages, which I simply skipped - but here it is: *do you have presets loaded in your program for regular Stihl 3/8ths inch chain? I don't feel like rushing out to the garage to start measuring. *It's a nice program, BTW. 

If not, do you perhaps have the measurements so that I can enter them manually?

I ask this in light of a friend who does regular cutting of bluegums around here, and has told me that no-one has been able to sharpen his chains so that they perform like new ones. This got me thinking, as I sharpen both with a grinder (for badly damaged chains) as well as a hand file. I want to be able to do this for him. Near the beginning of this topic, Philbert (I think) posted an exellent pdf by Carlton, in which I was exposed for the first time to the concept of "Progressive Depth Gauge Filing", as opposed to the "constant" method I had always used. Thinking of my friend, this made a light go on in the back of my dimly-lit brain - here might be the reason he thought "less" of sharpened chains, however properly they had been sharpened.

Afte reading the article thoroughly, I must admit that the depth gauges are the part of the chain sharpening/maintenance procedures to which I have not paid the correct amount of attention. This changes as of today!

Thanks for sharing your program with us, Hannes. I will try to make a gauge and provide us with some feedback.

Regards,

Mike


----------



## PogoInTheWoods (Jun 27, 2019)

There is still some jabbing back and forth throughout the last several pages but there is also some good discussion of the topic if you are inclined to wander through it. 

Otherwise, save yourself the aggravation and just buy a couple of these. They're as close as you will get to effectively maintaining depth gauges using the progressive method in an economical and readily available tool. 

Husky Raker Gauge Pics

https://www.husqvarna.com/us/access...ners-filing-equipment/depth-gauges/596285101/


----------



## Mike Kunte (Jun 27, 2019)

PogoInTheWoods said:


> There is still some jabbing back and forth throughout the last several pages but there is also some good discussion of the topic if you are inclined to wander through it.
> 
> Otherwise, save yourself the aggravation and just buy a couple of these. They're as close as you will get to effectively maintaining depth gauges using the progressive method in an economical and readily available tool.
> 
> ...



Hi Pogo,

Thanks for the info. I run Stihl chains. Would you happen to know whether they also offer a similar device?

Thanks,

Mike


----------



## PogoInTheWoods (Jun 27, 2019)

BTW, I did actually take measurements of Stihl RM .404 back on page 19 for addition to the program. Took some time and patience but is certainly do-able. I did misunderstand one parameter which Hannes clarified in subsequent responses should you choose to do some measurements of your own. Otherwise, all the other parameters are specified according to the program input areas.

Out of curiosity, what do you mean by "regular Stihl 3/8ths inch chain"? I intended to measure additional 3/8's Stihl profiles but frankly lost interest due to the minutia vs. substance ratio here becoming just a tad disproportionate even for me. LOL


----------



## Mike Kunte (Jun 27, 2019)

Lol! It’s the normal, standard RS chain in 3/8 size. Pic attached.

Mike


----------



## PogoInTheWoods (Jun 27, 2019)

And yes, Stihl does make a similar device. It was referred to earlier in the thread, but I've never seen one and don't recall what it is. Whatever they call it, I'm sure it will be more expensive than the Husky tool! 

The Husky tool will work on any non-safety chain and safety chain with the adjacent bumper in the drive link as well as Oregon Vanguard style safety chain with the curved raker. It obviously won't work with the camel hump style safety chain.

Husky also makes a roller file guide that includes a flip-out variation of the depth gauge tool.


----------



## Mike Kunte (Jun 27, 2019)

Thanks, Pogo! Appreciate the info!


----------



## PogoInTheWoods (Jun 27, 2019)

Happy to help.

Here is the Stihl tool. They also make a 2-in-1 tool that files both the tooth and the depth gauge simultaneously but it's expensive and is chain type/size specific. You tie up quite a bit of money in that approach if you have several saws using different types of chain and they also get you on the files. Good choice for folks who don't even know what a depth gauge is, but not something a hand filer would typically embrace. I believe the tool is manufactured by Pferd and their version is available for about $10 less in most markets. It may be just the ticket for your friend, actually.

https://www.stihl.com/STIHL-power-t...ent-maintenance/267816-63674/File-gauges.aspx

Finally, and in the spirit of the thread, I know of exactly one person other than Hannes who has made a depth gauge tool generally based on his initial idea. Finding conveniently appropriate stock for the task is the only reason I haven't tried to make one yet, myself. Hell, the other guy just used the blade from an old putty knife and says it works great..., give or take and extra stroke here or there. LOL

Good luck.


----------



## Mike Kunte (Jun 28, 2019)

hannes69 said:


> Hmpf  *Someone has to do these measurements, really.* Some time in the future there has to be a new simplified thread dealing with this topic. The evolution thing. BobL built something upon Carlton material, I built something up upon BobL´s thread, now later on you get back to Carlton material (  ) and finally all this 'prework' finds its way into another thread (maybe not started by me!). My calculator now allows to know the resulting cutting angles for a given raker depth tool combined with a certain chain. I started the simplified list containing two entries. If this list should make some sense, it has to be filled properly. That means in my opinion 3/8, 3/8LP, .325 and .404 chain pitches. If the list shoul have some 'power' or 'weight', some measurments additional to mine have to be made. I don´t think that from 2 single measurements done by one person (one certain 3/8 chain, one certain 3/8LP chain) we can make general conclusions. It is possible to assume that there are some parallels, I personally can´t make such assumptions at this point. Too small data set, so simple in my opinion. That is the point that I mentioned in teh starting post, it´s a community project, there is a need that some people deliver something call it 'directly' or 'physically'.
> In this thread there are many opinions, point of views, reports about experiences, critics and so on, but thereé definitely a huge lack of DIRECT support.
> This words aren´t directed to your person obviously, you already have delivered useful numbers for real gauges and so made some measurements.
> If there is the will to give something practicable and useful to the community, someone will have to make these measurements, there´s really no way around it. I personally won´t buy chain pitches I have no use for. This measuring task is maybe not very amusing, but on the other side it is not magic and it really can be done.
> I know, it´s easy to write some lines in a forum, it´s way harder to actually DO something.



Hallo Hannes!

Nochmals danken wir Ihnen für das Programm das Sie uns geschrieben haben! Ich finde das doch toll! Damit die Anderen sich jetzt nicht (weiter) ärgern, führen wir dieses Gespräch jetzt auf Englisch weiter....

In my humble opinion, the best way to take these measurements accurately, is with the use of an optical comparator. Those who are familiar with the device will know the following, but I include it so that those who don't, can be on the same page. The comparator is basically a "magnifying projector", used mainly in engineering toolrooms, which has a direct scale overlay screen, allowing one to inspect small objects (albeit in silhouette only) in detail, to allow gauging of sizes and angles, and the accurate measurement of threads, gear toothforms, gauges, and the like. In the main, it is used for checking cutting angles on lathe and milling tools, as well as in the verification of manufactured part, to check for grinding and machining tolerances in such parts.

If you look carefully at the pic, you can see the small object which is being projected onto ths screen of the comparator, and the fine lines on the screen which are "masks" to help with angle and length determination.

If you could speak to a small engineering works (I'm sure there are many in Germany), and have them put a section of your sawchain in the comparator, you would be able to get the accurate measurements you are looking for!

Hope this helps.

Mike


----------



## Mike Kunte (Jun 28, 2019)

Here's a link for a quick optical comaparator tutorial. My short description did not nearly do this powerful tool justice!



Mike


----------



## hannes69 (Jun 28, 2019)

Mike Kunte said:


> As they say in the classics: "That escalated quickly!".


Oh yes. My nerves got a little bit stressed sometimes, but looking at it with some distance it was quite an interesting process, at least for me 



Mike Kunte said:


> do you have presets loaded in your program for regular Stihl 3/8ths inch chain?





Mike Kunte said:


> It’s the normal, standard RS chain in 3/8 size.


I think yes. One of my two self-measured presets refers to Stihl 3/8 RM chain. RM means Rapid Micro, it´s a chain with semi-chisel cutters; RS means Rapid super, it´s a chain with chisel (full chisel) cutters. Both chains should be exactly the same, they should only differ in the cutters´shape, so the RS is more aggressive than the RM but also more prone to wearing. The measurements shouldn´t be affected, so a raker depth gauge (bought or selfmade) should lead to the same results for both chains. You need different raker depth gauges for different pitches (1/4, .325, 3/8, .404) and different profiles ('normal ' profile and low profile).



Mike Kunte said:


> It's a nice program, BTW.


Thanks 



Mike Kunte said:


> I will try to make a gauge and provide us with some feedback


That would be nice 



Mike Kunte said:


> In my humble opinion, the best way to take these measurements accurately, is with the use of an optical comparator. [...]
> If you could speak to a small engineering works (I'm sure there are many in Germany), and have them put a section of your sawchain in the comparator, you would be able to get the accurate measurements you are looking for!


Yeah. This device seems to be made exactly for such purposes.
I personally don´t know a company owning and using such a device, but certainly there should be some here around.
I tried this method in a simpler way as well.
My normal approach was to use rulers, pencil and digital calipers, doing multiple measurements to eliminate some of the error and watching out for maintaining a rather rectangular setup.
The other approach was comparable to the optical comparator, but without automated measurements. I took a digital camera, made same photos of the cutters and made the measurments manually with a computer software. With this method you also have to maintain a rectangular setup. But you don´t have to fiddle around with the calipers, instead you can use a mouse and drag some lines and points.
Within my hobbyist´s accuracy both methods delivered more or less the same results, so it´s a matter of taste how to make such measurements.

My idea of this thread was to build up upon BobL´s work, do some prework with my software and two chain measurements and give it at this point to the forum here to make a community project out of it (which clearly failed up to this point in time). I personally won´t do something 'professional' in this regard, so no professional measurements and no idea of personal profit (in terms of money), a freeware software tool and no intention of selling raker depth gauges.
The project simply got stuck due to the missing direct contribution of the community, it stayed at the point of discussion and theory. The topic itself and my person were accused being 'too academic', the way out of this would be active practical contribution.
At this point you can use the information of the starting post in this thread to make your own raker depth gauge for Stihl 3/8 chain and Carlton 3/8 low profile chain (maybe for more chains, that´s the question...)
Of course it would be nice to have access to a device like an optical comparator and know some chainsaw pros owning all different kind of chains and measure them professionally in a short time with high accuracy.
But the hobby approach should work as well. And community means that the workload is spreaded over multiple heads.
A complete measurement of one chain should take less than half an hour. And who doesn´t own (digital) calipers, rulers, pencils, ..., that´s all standard tools 
I´m speaking of collecting some data to make some conclusions. Maybe most of the chains (assuming same pitch and profile) share the same measurements, so we can rule out the parameter 'manufacturer'? Maybe not, I simply don´t know due to the lack of data.
Maybe we can skip 1/4 chain for the moment. But widespread and in use should be .325, 3/8 and .404 chains.
So to have some useful data, most important would be:
some .325 chains
some 3/8 normal profile and low profile chains to compare with my two data sets
some .404 chains.
So hopefully 2 chains of two different manufacturers for each case, meaning 8 different chains.
I hoped that some people here in the community could do these measurements, maybe 4 people measuring 2 chains.
Then with some conclusions and assumptions the software would be 'complete'.
This software with more presets combined with a clean new tutorial would be the next steps in this work.

In my impression there´s not much interest here in offering and using such a solution.
I´m pretty shure that even when having a full data set, a complete software and a new thread most of the users would not make such a simple tool themselves. Many users still use the 'normal' non-progressive raker depth gauges, or simply no raker depth gauge. Others who prefer the progressive ones want to buy and use them but will never make their own one.
DIY seems less widespread than I personally thought.

If someone delivers me new measurement data, I will implement it into the software of course.

So Mike, make your raker depth gauge, and give us some feedback, maybe this threads gets some reanimation


----------



## hannes69 (Jun 28, 2019)

PogoInTheWoods said:


> frankly lost interest due to the minutia vs. substance ratio here becoming just a tad disproportionate even for me. LOL


Nice wording and I´m quite sure what you are meaning here 



PogoInTheWoods said:


> Finally, and in the spirit of the thread, I know of exactly one person other than Hannes who has made a depth gauge tool generally based on his initial idea. Finding conveniently appropriate stock for the task is the only reason I haven't tried to make one yet, myself. Hell, the other guy just used the blade from an old putty knife and says it works great..., give or take and extra stroke here or there. LOL


Oh. One person made this tool himself (beside me). Mission accomplished 
Still no metal piece in stock? The whole (modern) world consists of metal. Take an angle grinder and find some part, cutting out some part and grinding it down to the desired thickness


----------



## Mike Kunte (Jun 28, 2019)

hannes69 said:


> Oh yes. My nerves got a little bit stressed sometimes, but looking at it with some distance it was quite an interesting process, at least for me
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## hannes69 (Jun 28, 2019)

Mike Kunte said:


> The RM chains have a much smaller/lower profile than the "full size" RS chains.


Are you really sure about that? I don´t own a RS chain to compare. Maybe someone owning both RS and RM should compare them and give a short comment about dimensions.
Stihl offers its raker depth gauges in 1/4, .325, 3/8, 3/8 low profile and .404. They don´t make a difference between different 3/8 chains (RM or RS), only a difference between normal 3/8 and low profile 3/8 (we call them 'hobby chains' in Germany or refer to 'hobby pitch' when talking about low profile chains. The RM chain is not a low profile chain. Maybe a RM chain has smaller cutters than a RS chain, but as far as I know the only difference is the cutters´shape. The naming scheme from Stihl says not normal or low profile, Rapid means normal profile, and the low profile chains are called Picco. So my 3/8 RM chain is a normal profile 3/8 chain with semi-chisel cutters.
You can measure the RS chain yourself within a very short amount of time. The whole dataset covers 6 parameters (5 lengths and one angle). And you don´t need all of them. The rivet diameter is definetely the same like in my measurement. The initial raker depth is the same (and this value only influences the initial one or two angles shown in my software, this doesn´t influence the depth gauge). The distance between rivet and raker really should be the same. Remains the measurement of A, B and alpha, so three measurements.

Or way simpler just do this and it will work (quoting myself from post #2 in this thread here), just replace Micro with Super 

"You own a chain listed in the presets of the software e.g. Stihl Rapid Micro 3/8 0.063. You choose design 2 and you like a cutting angle in the region of 6.5°. You buy a 1 inch wide stripe of 1.2mm steel, cut off 4 inches, make a rectangular cutting 172 mil wide and 850 mil deep and optionally bend the steel stripe for better gauge handling. That´s all."

The whole rest of this thread is discussion, arguing and so on and the trial to make this approach universal (and beside that a lot of offtopic stuff and destructive approaches). When using 3/8 normal profile chain, you can skip all of it and simply do what I quoted above. You´ll have a raker depth gauge appropriate for your chain, maintaining the initial cutting angle throughout the useful life of your chain very accurately like shown in the software´s screenshot of post #1.
If you don´t trust me, wait until some guy here does the measurements of a 3/8 RS chain or do the measurements yourself.

And again the field of discussion. Why not simply try it? During the time of thinking, discussion or measuring I can make more than one of these raker depth gauges... The potential financial loss for a 1x4 inch metal sheet should be neglectable. And the construction time is less than 30 minutes.
I don´t quite understand the general aversion in this thread against simply making such a tool. If it works - success, if not a few cents and half an hour of your life time 'lost' (it is not lost, you gained experience) and then you can bash me as a bonus to compensate for the frustration


----------



## SEAM (Jun 28, 2019)

Interesting reading... Whatever works best is what we should use.
I use a straight edge (actually my Husqvarna flat file) and the nail of my right-hand thumb to judge the gap between tooth top and raker height. Has worked nicely and universally so far for all kinds of chain I use.


----------



## Mike Kunte (Jun 30, 2019)

Not to be too pedantic about the matter, but Stihl’s RS and RM chains are definitely not the same. RS chains have a 3/8” inch (0.375”) pitch, whilst RM, which are considerably smaller, have a 0.325” pitch. I’m certain they would need different gauges.

I can’t wait to get into the garage and make a gauge or two. I will certainly give you feedback on the performance. If at all possible, I would appreciate an RS preset in your program, since it is by far the most widely used Stihl chain.

Thanks again!


----------



## ray benson (Jun 30, 2019)

Stihl RM chain is made in 1/4, .325 and 3/8 pitch
Stihl RS chain is made in .325 and 3/8 pitch
Click on specifications to see the different gauges and pitches available
https://www.stihlusa.com/products/chain-saws/saw-chains/rs/?rev=BVSpotlights
https://www.stihlusa.com/products/chain-saws/saw-chains/rm/?rev=BVSpotlights


----------



## hannes69 (Jun 30, 2019)

Mike Kunte said:


> Stihl’s RS and RM chains are definitely not the same. RS chains have a 3/8” inch (0.375”) pitch, whilst RM, which are considerably smaller, have a 0.325” pitch. I’m certain they would need different gauges.


No.  RS and RM are both available in 3/8 and in .325 pitch. RS is full chisel, RM semi-chisel chain, that´s the difference. Both are normal profile chains. 
Maybe you´re irritated by the naming 'micro'. That doesn´t refer to a smaller pitch or a lower cutter´s profile. The pitch is named by Stihl directly according to the pitch value. And the lower profile chains are called Picco. Why Stihl is naming the semi-chisel chain 'micro' and the full chisel chain 'super' - I really don´t know.
My measurements are made from a brand-new Stihl Rapid Micro chain 0.063 gauge (1.6mm metric) in 3/8 pitch. You´re using essentially the same chain, they only differ in the cutter´s shape. That doesn´t influence the relevant measurements and you need exactly the same raker depth gauge for both of these chains to get the desired cutting angle.



Mike Kunte said:


> I can’t wait to get into the garage and make a gauge or two. I will certainly give you feedback on the performance. If at all possible, I would appreciate an RS preset in your program, since it is by far the most widely used Stihl chain.


Looking forward to your feedback  And like described, the RM preset is a RS preset as well, I simply named them according to the chain used for the measurements.


----------



## PogoInTheWoods (Jun 30, 2019)

RS is chisel. RM is semi-chisel. The small 3/8's is Picco with a PM designation. I've attached the Selection and Identification chart for handy reference as well.

For software input purposes, I would think the only differences between RS and RM chain cutters would possibly be length and height at the cutters face.

edit: Oops. I see clarification has already been posted.


----------



## hannes69 (Jun 30, 2019)

Thanks Pogo for the chart 
I used 36 RM 60 chain for my measurements. The number of drive links has no influence of course, and I think the gauge (0.050, 0,058, 0.063) shouldn´t either. The cutters´s shape full chisel vs. semi-chisel could have a small influence (if really), but it shouldn´t have a relevant impact on the resulting cutting angles. The manufacturers of the buyable raker depth gauges only differentiate in pitch, not in gauge or cutters´shape.
Of course someone owning both types of chains could deliver some feedback, either by measurements or quick and dirty visual inspection...


----------



## Mike Kunte (Jul 1, 2019)

hannes69 said:


> No.  RS and RM are both available in 3/8 and in .325 pitch. RS is full chisel, RM semi-chisel chain, that´s the difference. Both are normal profile chains.
> Maybe you´re irritated by the naming 'micro'. That doesn´t refer to a smaller pitch or a lower cutter´s profile. The pitch is named by Stihl directly according to the pitch value. And the lower profile chains are called Picco. Why Stihl is naming the semi-chisel chain 'micro' and the full chisel chain 'super' - I really don´t know.
> My measurements are made from a brand-new Stihl Rapid Micro chain 0.063 gauge (1.6mm metric) in 3/8 pitch. You´re using essentially the same chain, they only differ in the cutter´s shape. That doesn´t influence the relevant measurements and you need exactly the same raker depth gauge for both of these chains to get the desired cutting angle.
> 
> ...




Ok, thanks very much! I was not aware that the RM chains were also offered in a 3/8 pitch. Looks like it's time to start making gauges!!!


----------



## Mike Kunte (Jul 2, 2019)

Ok,

It's official - I'm back from the garage. Meet my two new best friends!!!! Please ignore the typos on the narrower one.... 




Below, you can see them resting in the vise jaws on my short section on brand new chain. The depth gauge sits perfectly in the corner, like a good boy,  whilst the front of the gauge rides on the rivets. Both are similar; made from 1.2mm Stainless Steel plate, with the opening cut to the dimensions specified in Hannes' first post. Let me say this - *these gauges work exactly as promised*. I dropped them onto some brand new chain I keep around, and they just sat there, with the depth gauges (I hate the term "raker", but that's a fight for another day!) perfectly flush with the tops. So, I haul out my MS390 with the rather worn-down chain on the 14" bar. Many moons ago, I had filed its depth gauges too low (trying to eyeball them), and had ended up with a very aggressive, grabby chain, which I did not like. After several sharpenings, it had calmed down a bit to where, when I put the new gauge on it this morning, the depth gauges were almost perfect... I just got lucky!






View attachment 744516


View attachment 744526







So, I grab the MS361 with the 17" bar, and lo and behold - the depth gauges stick out above the gauge like little black pimples!





This was the result of filing them down by the constant method - one not recommended by Carlton. Great! Now to filing! It took between 15 and 25 strokes on each depth gauge to sit perfectly flush with the top of the new gauge.




Let me tell you - seeing the gauges stick out by such a minute amount made me realise that anyone who claims to "just eyeball" his depth gauges, is either telling pork pies, or is seriously overestimating his abilities... The section in the Carlton chain manual says as much too.....

Below, you can see how the depth gauge sits level with the top of the gauge. The camera angle makes it look as if it sitting below...




Anyway, I for one am very glad that I ran into this topic, and grateful that Hannes offered his input on the matter. It has taught me a whole new level of respect for depth gauges, and what their role is in the whole cutting system. As I had mentioned is a previous post, I had always just skimmed over the depth gauges (both physically and emotionally). They became largely the stepchildren of the cutting family - occasionally looked at, never much attention given. If the chain was sharp, but cutting slowly, I would suddenly remember them, and file them down in a hasty, lackluster fashion, to get cutting again. But you know what? Since learning about progressive depth gauge maintenance, I have changed my view of these orphans radically. They are to me now like the Down's syndrome child of the family - people tend to shy away from them, but they are the glue which, ironically, brings the whole family together. Most of the attention normally goes to the "rock star" children, (the cutters), but all that has changed now! The whole family will receive my proper attention. *The depth gauges are the "wind beneath my wings" components of the cutting family, without which the rock stars would not be able to shine!!!
*
Thank you to everyone who participated in this thread, and for all the info offered. I have become a better chain sharpener! My ultimate goal with these gauges is to get a friend's chain up to speed again. He does not grind or file, thus is at the mercy of the dealers. I shall post feedback on whether I was successful or not.

Kudos to Hannes!


----------



## Mike Kunte (Jul 2, 2019)

P.S. Apologies for some of the double-post pics. Some of them are also out of sequence, or just won't load. I had one helluva time uploading. There is a problem on our ADSL line. Sorry...


----------



## PogoInTheWoods (Jul 2, 2019)

Nice job.

That's not exactly just your run-of-the-mill redneck workmanship, there. LOL

How did you actually make them? (Details, please.)


----------



## hannes69 (Jul 2, 2019)

Mike Kunte said:


> It's official - I'm back from the garage. Meet my two new best friends!!!!



Yeah, it´s official, we have reached post #466 in this thread and you are officially the first person who has produced a raker depth gauge according to Hannes´Raker Depth Gauge™! 
Seriously, nice job!



Mike Kunte said:


> these gauges work exactly as promised.


Yes. I promised it and you seem to be the first person who really believed it 



Mike Kunte said:


> I dropped them onto some brand new chain I keep around, and they just sat there, with the depth gauges perfectly flush with the tops.


Sounds like a kind of evidence, that the RM and RS chains share the same measurements. On a brand new RM chain the depth gauge is perfectly flush with the raker tops as well. This wouldn´t be the case if the measurements would differ in a larger amount.



Mike Kunte said:


> The depth gauges are the "wind beneath my wings" components of the cutting family, without which the rock stars would not be able to shine!


Yes, for efficient cutting (and some fun during work) the cutters and the rakers must be taken into account.
For me additionally the impact on environment is very important. I assume that many chains are thrown away prematurely due to the lack of performance due to too high rakers due to the lack of a progressive raker depth gauge. And then of course the DIY idea. And perfection and personalization.
Like I said in the first post: "Being proud of having another self-made tool" I think you can be proud and I think you are 

Great photos!
Could you please leave additional comments about your production method, which tools you have used, how long did it take, how difficult was it for you, do you use your new tool directly (file onto it) or indirectly (only measure after filing)?

Have fun with your new tool!


----------



## Mike Kunte (Jul 3, 2019)

hannes69 said:


> Yeah, it´s official, we have reached post #466 in this thread and you are officially the first person who has produced a raker depth gauge according to Hannes´Raker Depth Gauge™!
> Seriously, nice job!
> 
> 
> ...



Hi,

I simply followed your recommendations in post #1, and used an angle grinder to cut a strip of SS off a larger plate. Then ground the edges on a belt sander, and finished with a file. The groove was also marked out and cut near the line with the angle grinder, and also finished to the line with a file. Edges rounded and cleaned up on the belt sander.
Finally, the tools were clamped in a vise, and the angles bent in with a hammer. A punch set finished the letters and numbers off. Not hi-tech at all - close to Redneck engineering! 

As far as using the gauge, I learnt many years ago that filing over the gauge (Stihl's depth gauge is not hardened steel) is a bad idea. Since the new gauge is also not made of hardened steel, I have followed the same procedure here - measure with the gauge to determine how much stick-out there is, and remove gauge to file. Then check progress with the gauge again. It's so quick to check with the gauge. The whole process took about 6 minutes to do. Chains with more cutters will obviously take a bit longer.

Thanks again for a most handy tool!


----------



## PogoInTheWoods (Jul 3, 2019)

*How to Make Your Own Progressive Depth Gauge Tools With The Help Of Free and Simple Software*​


hannes69 said:


> "You own a chain listed in the presets of the software e.g. Stihl Rapid Micro 3/8 0.063. You choose design 2 and you like a cutting angle in the region of 6.5°. You buy a 1 inch wide stripe of 1.2mm steel, cut off 4 inches, make a rectangular cutting (slot) 172 mil wide and 850 mil deep (long) and optionally bend the steel stripe for better gauge handling. _*That´s all*_."





Mike Kunte said:


> I simply followed your recommendations in post #1, and used an angle grinder to cut a strip of SS off a larger plate. Then ground the edges on a belt sander, and finished with a file. The groove was also marked out and cut near the line with the angle grinder, and also finished to the line with a file. Edges rounded and cleaned up on the belt sander.
> Finally, the tools were clamped in a vise, and the angles bent in with a hammer. A punch set finished the letters and numbers off. _*Not hi-tech at all - close to Redneck engineering!*_




​It only took 24 pages and 451 posts over 14 months to finally arrive at the bottom line essence of this thread. Well done, scouts!

I would respectfully assert that if approached with such simplicity at the outset, the response would have been closer to what was initially intended while reaching a much broader and effectively functional participant base -- which would have evolved more along a natural flow of interest rather than an attitude of, "Who is this Guy? Where did he come from? And when is he going back?" LOL

After a more subtle/simple opening, _THEN_ provide the propeller-head-geek details for the more in-depth theoretical discussion (and criticism) as was derived from The Hannes Raker Gauge Home Page..., which _was _the introduction.

I have personally enjoyed the thread and learned quite a bit over the course of the journey. Perhaps it will be revisited along the way by more folks like Mike who found the subject matter compelling enough to plow through the non-essential noise in search of enough practical knowledge to reach his own conclusions and make a couple tools anyway.

Still looking for a convenient source of 1.2mm thick SS, myself. In the meantime until I find some...

Success, Hannes.

Cheers.


----------



## Mike Kunte (Jul 3, 2019)

PogoInTheWoods said:


> *How to Make Your Own Progressive Depth Gauge Tools With The Help Of Free and Simple Software*​
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hi Pogo, 

Thanks to you for all your helpful inputs and info. I can't believe it took me 20 years to learn about progressive depth gauge adjustment! Talk about a slow learner!

Anyway. Macmaster Carr is a US-based supplier for all steel products, but if you drop by your local steel fabrication shop or scrap yard, I'm sure you'd be able to pick up a scrap piece is SS. Sometimes the folks are very accommodating, and won't even charge you.

https://www.mcmaster.com/

I'd be happy to send you some of mine free of charge, but I think the shipping will kill you....

Mike


----------



## hannes69 (Jul 4, 2019)

Mike Kunte said:


> A punch set finished the letters and numbers off. Not hi-tech at all - close to Redneck engineering!


Hmmm ... for me the punched letters look hi-tech, I don´t own such 'tools' 



Mike Kunte said:


> As far as using the gauge, I learnt many years ago that filing over the gauge (Stihl's depth gauge is not hardened steel) is a bad idea.


I don´t use the raker depth gauge directly as well. I made one of my gauges out of hardened steel (1,0 mm thick) which leads to a larger cutting angle. It is possible to use this gauge directly without destroying it within a few file strokes, but I think that the file would suffer more than I´d like to... And my raker file is not so sharp that one or two strokes more or less make a too large difference, so using the gauge after 3 or 4 additional strokes in a series is sufficient for me. After using the gauge and seeing the raker´s height several times you´ll get a good estimation for the needed strokes. So putting the gauge onto the raker, estimating 6 strokes, performing 6 strokes, putting on the gauge again, 6 strokes confirmed, next raker


----------



## hannes69 (Jul 4, 2019)

PogoInTheWoods said:


> It only took 24 pages and 451 posts over 14 months to finally arrive at the bottom line essence of this thread.


The really really good things in life take their time 



PogoInTheWoods said:


> I would respectfully assert that if approached with such simplicity at the outset, the response would have been closer to what was initially intended while reaching a much broader and effectively functional participant base -- which would have evolved more along a natural flow of interest


I know what you mean. But like I said in the starting post, explaining things the short and easy way is not my strength 
Maybe I presumed a little bit too much. I thought her I am at the biggest forum worldwide covering the given topic. And when reading BobL´s and others´ threads I had the impression that there is a large amount of practical experience and/or theoretical knowledge on bigger parts of the community. So I wanted to start at a certain level and with some things given as fact for me, so e.g. no explanation why the progressive approach is better than a constant. And I assumed that people using chainsaws also have some kind of workshop/garage/machines/tools/metal sheets and are generally interested in making tools.
The biggest mistakes I made was definitely to present the topic within 'one big pack' and going too early into computer/numbers/science/software matters. It was not easy for me too estimate such things. I was concentrated on language, pictures, formulations and covering most parts of my approach.



PogoInTheWoods said:


> I have personally enjoyed the thread and learned quite a bit over the course of the journey. Perhaps it will be revisited along the way by more folks like Mike who found the subject matter compelling enough to plow through the non-essential noise in search of enough practical knowledge to reach his own conclusions and make a couple tools anyway.


For some parts I enjoyed the thread (like e.g. now), for other parts it was a source of anger (thinking about certain comments of certain persons  )
With some community work and contribution it still is possible to make something out of it. A new thread covering the basic concepts of raker depth gauges, some photos, maybe a short video, gathering some measurement data for .325 and .404 chains, making a short list containing the direct dimensions of the resulting gauges and offering the software for pro / personalized usage. That would be the next useful steps.
I will not start this new thread, maybe someone will do this some time in the future. Or maybe not 
So it´s ok for me, I learned some things as well on this journey, I made an offer, and hey, at least Mike Kunte made something out of it


----------



## Del_ (Jul 4, 2019)

Del_ said:


> Thanks so much Hannes!
> 
> I'll be following your thread for sure.



Thanks again!

(and no, I haven't made one)


----------



## Mike Kunte (Jul 4, 2019)

Hannes mentioned the satisfaction of working with tools to had made yourself. Here's a link to a pair of log rollers I made last year. Enjoy...

https://www.arboristsite.com/community/threads/home-built-log-roller-peavey.333515/

P.S. wishing all our US friends a great Independence Day


----------



## hannes69 (Jul 12, 2019)

Del_ said:


> (and no, I haven't made one)


What a shame  But thanks for following the thread


----------



## hannes69 (Jul 12, 2019)

Mike Kunte said:


> Hannes mentioned the satisfaction of working with tools to had made yourself. Here's a link to a pair of log rollers I made last year. Enjoy...


Yes. it´s satisfactory to plan tools, make them and use them. Ok, my gauge was more of a watchmaker´s work, your log rollers are more of a heavy duty style... But all of them are tools at the end.


----------



## Del_ (Jul 12, 2019)

hannes69 said:


> What a shame  But thanks for following the thread



I'm glad to see the interest in this thread.

I usually keep the same chain on a saw until I'm worn the chain out. I do the depth gauges by feel. If the chain is not aggressive enough I take them down a bit. I strive to keep the teeth all the same length and if a chain is not aggressive enough I measure the depth gauge with a feeler gauge and a straight edge placed across the top of two teeth. I've got Stihl fixed measuring guages and Husky progressive gauges but usually just use a feeler gauge as I've described.

I hand file square ground most of the time and have converted many chains between round and square over the years. It is quite easy. I have a good supply of Save Edge files.


----------



## Mike Kunte (Jul 15, 2019)

Ok, feedback time!

I will sort-of double post here, since the feedback regarding the diamond file came from this topic, but the depth gauge feedback from another topic....

Anyway, having filed the half-used 3/8 Stihl full chisel chain (which cut very well to begin with), I finished each tooth off with a couple of swipes from the Trend Diamond File in 600#. The teeth were "sticky" sharp. I then used Hannes69's progressive depth gauge to drop the depth gauges to their new level (in order to maintain that constant cutting angle of around 6 degrees). This chain ate wood like a pitbull in a Barbie Doll store!

I literally could hardly "feel" the cutting taking place. The best way to describe the sensation would be that the chain "melted" its way through the wood. Admittedly, I only took down a small bluegum (around 8 inches ion diamteer, and about 20' tall), so the wood was really soft (as opposed to the more mineralized fibres in m,ore mature trees), but the chips were flying! My BIL commented that he had never seen such nice big chips flying like that. And to top it all off, the chain was very well behaved - not "grabby" or rough at all! I did not try a bore cut (this normally exposes a too-low depth gauge setting better than normal cross-cutting), since the tree diameter was too small, but I am convinced it will be really well-behaved!

I was initially rather cautious about the large depth gauge setting (this chain is past its halfway mark), but my fears proved unfounded - it really cut without issues!

Thanks to all who helped get me here!

Mike


----------



## chipper1 (Aug 22, 2019)

Mike Kunte said:


> Ok, feedback time!
> 
> I will sort-of double post here, since the feedback regarding the diamond file came from this topic, but the depth gauge feedback from another topic....
> 
> ...


That's great to hear .


----------



## chipper1 (Aug 22, 2019)

Westboastfaller said:


> Operator grabs pull cord, spins around three times like an Olympic discus champion and launches the saw off the hillside...


Sounds familiar, Saw Chucker is that you .


hannes69 said:


> type 2 is a 'garage production' of some German guy, so ....


That's all good, in the arb industry many things come about as a solution for or a modification of a product that performed just not to an individuals standards or needs. Most all the SRT devices had their start in climbers garages .


Westboastfaller said:


> On a tiny tiny little very short side note, if I may:
> I use 4 different file sizes ranging from 3/16 to 1/4
> It was very common for me to
> have new files in three sizes in my bag. I like to take the time before the first days work to file a few new chains from factor grind in regards to coast falling. Its easier to lower the gullet in stages from the smallest files, especially on the one side as it has a higher factory gullet with the exception of Husqvarna chain only, I believe.
> ...


Great tip.
A nice tutorial with pictures would be great for those new to saws or new to filing, it would also be beneficial to many guys who have not seen this technique.
Sure makes for a quick touchup in the woods!


hannes69 said:


> Especially "a dining room table (for showing off newly purchased saws)"


Where else would you take pictures of your saws .


Westboastfaller said:


> ...not often I am the third longest poster in a thread?


That ain't no joke .


hannes69 said:


> but if it works better for me, maybe I don´t care that much about the 'why' ".


Somehow I don't believe you .

Where did the biggest critic go, he could have seen the awesome tool made by @Mike Kunte , Nice job BTW Mike.

@hannes69 Way to stick with it in this thread, great work too. 
As Rob @Stihl 041S was saying earlier in the thread that he would wear his white collar clothes in with the engineers and his blue collar garb with the guys on the floor, this would have helped tremendously to get the thread to take off as you had hoped, basically speaking understanding the end user a little better.

Being someone who likes to make/modify tools I enjoyed that aspect of the thread although I can appreciate the technical aspects as well, at least when I'm not out taking a couple extra swipes of the rakers to make the husky progressive gauges work lol. For the most part these days I just hand file one or two of the rakers and then put the chains on the raker grinder, if they don't cut well I'll take a swipe or two off and the chain is good to go. If that doesn't work much like you I'll grab another chain and lower the rakers when I get home on the grinder, I hate filing rakers. That being said I'm quite proficient at hand filling a chain and I can get the rakers lowered without a gauge and cutting without a guide if I start with a new chain, but I have a lot of used chains come to me so I spend a fair amount of time on the chain grinder as well as the raker grinder, and my elbows thank me. So even for a guy who can file without the gadgets(that's what many hand filers call them) I prefer not to hand file if I don't have to. I can also, contrary to what most hand filers teach, grind a pretty mean chain that cuts well and is smooth. 
Thanks for the thread.
Brett


----------



## hannes69 (Sep 7, 2019)

chipper1 said:


> Where did the biggest critic go, he could have seen the awesome tool made by @Mike Kunte


The big critics only show up when they have the opinion and mood to find something to critisize. In this case with Mike presenting his awesome new tool there was nothing to critisize, so no need to show up 



chipper1 said:


> As Rob @Stihl 041S was saying earlier in the thread that he would wear his white collar clothes in with the engineers and his blue collar garb with the guys on the floor, this would have helped tremendously to get the thread to take off as you had hoped, basically speaking understanding the end user a little better.


I know what you mean. It´s not so easy for me to 'address' people. I simply wrote this thread in my commonly used language and out of my point of view of things. Maybe I look at tech things more like a person wearing the white collar 
But like Mike Kunte showed, you can shrink the given information down to the necessary parts and start pretty soon with the practical part. The software part and explanations are for people with kind of indepth interests and for personal customizing needs. Maybe it would have been better to start with one simple practical example, showing to build your own 3/8 raker depth gauge with a given material and a commonly used cutting angle and then show in a second step the principle behind it and then the further possibilities to build a raker depth gauge for any given pitch, any specifically needed or wanted cutting angles and different given material thickness. Both sides are part of the opening posts in this thread, they simply aren´t separated. The whole bunch was maybe a little bit overkill for some of the community.
But hey, still proud that at least Mike found his way through it


----------



## NSEric (Sep 7, 2019)

I made one of these too, for .325 chain and it works well.


----------



## Rags (Oct 10, 2019)

Hello folks, just wanted to throw something out there that I have been thinking about.......

Has anyone thought about making a tool that would retreat rearward with the the cutter as it gets shorter? This would keep the set degree of angle for the depth gauge once you have settled on what degree you prefer for the type of cutting you do.

I have been thinking about a gauge that would have a slot in the end that would let it slide on top of the tie straps but instead of the gauge being slit forward to stop on the cutter side of the depth gauge it would slide rearward to stop against the cutter. If there is worry of dulling the cutter by pushing a piece of metal against the sharp edge, one could glue a small strip of plastic to the bottom of the gauge to be used as the stop which would contact the cutting edge of the cutter.

My thought is that a design of this type would very closely mimic using a DAF to set the depth gauges as it would actually be indexing off of the leading edge of the cutter to set the depth gauge height. The gauge setting would remain almost exact as the cutter gets shorter.


----------



## NSEric (Oct 10, 2019)

This style raker gauge already does that, which is the whole point of it, your over thinking things.


----------



## HarleyT (Oct 10, 2019)

If you keep refering to me as the great "critic", asking simple questions is "verboten"?

You keep endlessly keep mentioning this great critic, who is it?


----------



## HarleyT (Oct 10, 2019)

If I am this great evil one,
I am flattered.....

But I have stopped making any posts, as I see you cannot deal with simple questions.
And you are here only to baste your own ego......


----------



## Rags (Oct 11, 2019)

Hello Eric thanks for your reply, I think you may have missed something when reading my post, likely because of my vague description. 
I'm not sure if you have made any of the gauge designs proposed by Hannes or not, I have made 1 for each for 3/8LP, 3/8 & .404. All of the gauges I made were fabricated from 1" steel banding used to secure packages of 21' steel pipe. 
Anyway my point was the thought of making a gauge that does Not pivot as the cutter gets shorter. The design I am referring to would instead slide rearward as the cutter gets shorter. The design I proposed would Not rely on just laying on top of the cutter, it would rely on sliding rearward with a stop on the bottom side of the gauge which would butt up against the Cutting Edge so it would all but keep the exact angle you have chosen to use.

If you look at Hannes's design, which by the way I think is very clever and useful, the gauge stays stationary as the cutter gets shorter it just pivots and does not actually slide to the rear. The design I am referring to would actually slide to the rear with the cutter as it gets shorter with each sharpening.


----------



## PogoInTheWoods (Oct 11, 2019)

That design would be entirely dependent on a specific and consistent shape to both the cutter and gullet along the entire chain to achieve any type of repeatable result from tooth to tooth. Would also seem overly complicated to fab up compared to the elegant simplicity of Hannes' approach and other progressive type gauges in general..., at least IMHO.



Rags said:


> All of the gauges I made were fabricated from 1" steel banding used to secure packages of 21' steel pipe.



I've considered that as a practical source of gauge material as well. Just haven't gotten around to trying it yet. Glad to see someone else thinking along the same lines.


----------



## Rags (Oct 11, 2019)

Hello Pogo thanks for your response.

I am missing something apparently when you refer to the shape of the gullet & cutter needing to have a consistent shape......

What I am proposing is a gauge with a slot that would capture the depth gauge similar to Hannes's design but would have a horizontal stop on the bottom side The stop would be 90 degrees (right angle) to the slot for the depth gauge as well as the tie straps. The stop would be very short, only approx. 1/32"or shorter, below the bottom of the gauge so it would only make contact with the very leading edge (point) of the cutter. The stop would protrude from the bottom of the gauge just enough to catch the top/front/leading edge of the cutter, not far enough to be effected by the gullet. I think this would take the gullet shape/depth & cutter shape as well as the sharpening degree of angle or pitch out of the equation.

I know it would be easier if I post pics. of what I am talking about but I will be working on a prototype to test functionality in the near future. If I can make a workable design I will take some pics. then to post.


----------



## PogoInTheWoods (Oct 11, 2019)

I see. For some reason I was envisioning the 'stop' being at the bottom of the cutter..., essentially laying in (on?) the gullet. 

I gather the pivot point would need to be the tops of the tie straps for this approach (like a Husky or Carlton gauge) vs. the rivet as in Hannes' design? Either way still uses the working corner of the cutter as the 'reference' point for how much adjustment is applied to the raker. One just uses the top while the other uses the front. Either one will allow/require the depth gauge to move backward (relatively speaking) on the tip of the cutter (as a variable fulcrum in the case of of Hannes' tool) as the tooth gets shorter in both length and height. The only difference being one pivots on a rivet while the other maintains an angle by physically moving on the tie straps in reference to the working corner. That said, I believe there will probably be some discussion (if anyone is still interested here on page 25!) about the consistency of angle over the length/life of the tooth between using the top of the tie strap or the rivet as the pivot point -- along with whether your version of a moving gauge is simply a different way of obtaining the constant differential effect as the typical non-progressive tools already do. After all, their functionality is essentially based upon using the front of the working corner as a 'stop' combined with tooth height to a lesser degree as reference points to maintain a constant relative distance (as designed into the tool) between the cutter and raker..., which is achieved by moving the tool backward against the tip of the cutter for each new adjustment. The difference is in the lack of a pivot point for the tool to 'adjust' for the changing characteristics of the tooth as it becomes shorter in both length and height as would otherwise be the case with a progressive type tool. Your idea seems to be a combination of both to some degree. It'll certainly be interesting to see how it develops if you indeed move forward with it. I know I'm curious about it.


----------



## NSEric (Oct 11, 2019)

Rags said:


> Hello Eric thanks for your reply, I think you may have missed something when reading my post, likely because of my vague description.
> I'm not sure if you have made any of the gauge designs proposed by Hannes or not, I have made 1 for each for 3/8LP, 3/8 & .404. All of the gauges I made were fabricated from 1" steel banding used to secure packages of 21' steel pipe.
> Anyway my point was the thought of making a gauge that does Not pivot as the cutter gets shorter. The design I am referring to would instead slide rearward as the cutter gets shorter. The design I proposed would Not rely on just laying on top of the cutter, it would rely on sliding rearward with a stop on the bottom side of the gauge which would butt up against the Cutting Edge so it would all but keep the exact angle you have chosen to use.
> 
> If you look at Hannes's design, which by the way I think is very clever and useful, the gauge stays stationary as the cutter gets shorter it just pivots and does not actually slide to the rear. The design I am referring to would actually slide to the rear with the cutter as it gets shorter with each sharpening.



Have you used the gauge you made on a worn chain?
I have one like the one hanes designed and a husky one. They both maintain the same angle for the depth gauge as the chain wears so the chain cuts like new until the cutters are so small the start breaking off.
I find the gauge slides down the cutter as it wears automaticly lowering the depth gauge to the right amount as the cutter wears, the gauge doesn't pivot. 
IMO, this is all you need.


----------



## PogoInTheWoods (Oct 11, 2019)

NSEric said:


> the gauge doesn't pivot.



The gauge does technically pivot (gets lower as the cutter gets smaller) at the contact point where it rests on the tie straps (as in the Husky gauge) or on the rivet (as in the Hannes gauge).


----------



## waynedb (Dec 6, 2019)

Hi all,

This is my first post on this great forum. I have recently gotten into chainsaw milling. I put together an alaskan style mill with an MS660 and a 50" bar specifially to mill a ~4' diameter redgum (very hard hardwood) which fell on my in-laws property a few years ago in a quite difficult to get to and challenging location at the bottom of a gully. I've done one session on it so far and it seems I've caught the bug!

I've been trawling the threads here for tips and tricks, hoping to improve my setup and technique and came across the concept of progressive raker filing in some posts of BobL's...which led me here.

Raker depth may not be all that important to some, but when milling very hard and somewhat dry aussie hardwood, I need my saw and chain to be working at their best.

Well done Hannes for coming up with the type 2 approach and putting together the software to support it.

I've aquired myself a stack of 25mm x 100mm x 1.2mm stainless plates (see pic attached) and intend to make some gauges in the next few weeks before my next milling session. I'll report back with my Carlton semi-chisel skip chain measurements, some feedback on the gauge and some pics.


----------



## Mike Kunte (Dec 6, 2019)

Welcome, Wayne!

Please start making space in your garage for the new saws you are going to acquire!!!!

Mike


----------



## waynedb (Dec 8, 2019)

Thanks for the welcome Mike...

...and please don't encourage me!


----------



## waynedb (Dec 8, 2019)

Below are the measurements from my Carlton 3/8 .063 semi-chisel skip chain and a screenshot of what the raker angles will look like with a 47 mil (1.2mm) thickness gauge (all seem reasonable?)

Average of 5.5 degrees is perhaps a touch low...? 39 mil (1.0mm) thickness plate brings the average to 6.5...

As I mentioned, my current milling project is a very large partially dry redgum (quite hard Australian hardwood), maybe the 5.5 raker angle isn't such a bad idea...?

BobL's post here is informative on raker angles.

In any case, I'll aim to get some gauges made up with the 47 mil (1.2mm) stock that I have and see how it goes.


----------



## PogoInTheWoods (Dec 8, 2019)

Out of curiosity, what is your top plate filing angle?


----------



## waynedb (Dec 8, 2019)

I have two loops of the Carlton A3EP. I changed one to 10 degrees for ripping and the other is stock 35 degrees (used once for cross-cutting, not yet sharpened - I used this one for the measurements above).


----------



## fishercat (Dec 8, 2019)

I don't believe in environmental nonsense so I will continue to do asi please.


----------



## KiwiBro (Dec 8, 2019)

26 pages 

well I'll be


----------



## HarleyT (Dec 9, 2019)

fishercat said:


> I don't believe in environmental nonsense so I will continue to do asi please.


Huh??


----------



## jrs_diesel (Dec 9, 2019)

I just picked up some 1/16" (1.5875 mm) aluminum to make one of these gauges this weekend. I'll post my measurement from a new loop of Oregon 91PX.


----------



## waynedb (Dec 10, 2019)

I managed to get a gauge made yesterday. Took less than 20 mins in total. Very straightforward - if you can handle a square, marker, vice, grinder and file you can make one. Main steps in photo sequence below.




I filed the slot carefully so that it slips easily but snugly over the tie straps; this way the gauge sits there by itself and wobble is minimised. In pic 4 above you can see I still need to square off the end of the slot, but it doesn't affect the function of the gauge.

Below is a sequence that shows the gauge in use - works well. The camera angles are a bit deceptive - the gauge is sitting on the third rivet to the right of the raker in question. I like that the gauge gives the finished raker an angle rather than the flat top you get with the standard gauges - apparently this makes for smoother cutting and allows the raker to "dig-in" slightly allowing the cutter to be more aggressive.




My (imperfect) measuring of the final raker depth was about 40 mil, which on this chain, with 100 mil wear calculates to around 6.7 degrees raker angle. About right I guess, although the theoretical figures calculated by Hannes' program using the gauge thickness and new chain measurements and what I measured on my type 2 gauge-filed raker don't match exactly. Quite likely down to measuring inaccuracies - I may be a bit ham-fisted with calipers and a straight edge. I'm happy with the slightly higher angle, supposedly CSM calls for this anyway.

I'm heading back down the gully on Friday to do some more milling - will report back. Pending actual cutting performance, I'm chalking this up as a win for the nerds!


----------



## PogoInTheWoods (Dec 10, 2019)

Nice job and a great post for illustrating your start to finish process. Well done.


----------



## Del_ (Dec 10, 2019)

waynedb said:


> I managed to get a gauge made yesterday. Took less than 20 mins in total. Very straightforward if you can handle a square, marker, vice, grinder and file you can make one. Main steps in photo sequence below.
> ===
> 
> I'm heading back down the gully on Friday to do some more milling - will report back. Pending actual cutting performance, I'm chalking this up as a win for the nerds!



Thanks for the great illustration!

It got me to thinking that maybe a measuring gauge could be made and then adjusted to specific parameters experimentally by precision bending. 

Using no math at all. Just use a gauge like Waynebd had made, use it on a chain, take it to the woods, bend accordingly. Repeat.


----------



## waynedb (Dec 10, 2019)

I did wonder about this when making the gauge... 

My plates weren't entirely flat off the guillotine - I spent a bit of time hammer-tapping and hand-bending them as flat as I could.

It wouldn't be hard to tweak a slight bend in the gauge to either raise or lower it relative to the raker. Not sure what that would do to the linearity of the angles over the life of the cutter, but I think it would be fine to allow a bit of adjustment in the field.


----------



## hannes69 (Dec 11, 2019)

NSEric said:


> I made one of these too, for .325 chain and it works well.


Nice, so there is confirmation that the gauge works for pitches different from 3/8. 



Rags said:


> I have made 1 for each for 3/8LP, 3/8 & .404.


So all common pitches (leave alone 1/4) seem to work with the gauge design. I assumed that, but wasn´t sure because of the lack of practical experience...



Rags said:


> All of the gauges I made were fabricated from 1" steel banding used to secure packages of 21' steel pipe.


Out of curiousity what´s the thickness of this material and how do you flatten the material assuming it´s bent?



Rags said:


> What I am proposing is a gauge with a slot that would capture the depth gauge similar to Hannes's design but would have a horizontal stop on the bottom side The stop would be 90 degrees (right angle) to the slot for the depth gauge as well as the tie straps.
> [...]
> I know it would be easier if I post pics. of what I am talking about but I will be working on a prototype to test functionality in the near future. If I can make a workable design I will take some pics. then to post.


Yes, a pic or illustration would help, I can´t quite imagine your approach. Pics of a prototype woul even be better, including your experiences with it 



waynedb said:


> Below are the measurements from my Carlton 3/8 .063 semi-chisel skip chain and a screenshot of what the raker angles will look like with a 47 mil (1.2mm) thickness gauge (all seem reasonable?)
> Average of 5.5 degrees is perhaps a touch low...? 39 mil (1.0mm) thickness plate brings the average to 6.5...





waynedb said:


> My (imperfect) measuring of the final raker depth was about 40 mil, which on this chain, with 100 mil wear calculates to around 6.7 degrees raker angle. About right I guess, although the theoretical figures calculated by Hannes' program using the gauge thickness and new chain measurements and what I measured on my type 2 gauge-filed raker don't match exactly. Quite likely down to measuring inaccuracies


Thanks for the measurements! The measurements are certainly within reasonable limits. Not so easy to measure are the lengths B and D and the angle alpha. Some small errors here and there sum up quickly in the end result. What counts: Your gauge seems to work in practical life, you get reasonable and expected cutting angles. Your 6.7 degrees at 100 mil wear are similar to the calculated 7.0 degrees at 100 mil wear for my Stihl 3/8 chain. So I can probably assume, that the gauge principle seems to work well for different brands.




waynedb said:


> I managed to get a gauge made yesterday. Took less than 20 mins in total. Very straightforward - if you can handle a square, marker, vice, grinder and file you can make one.
> [...]
> I like that the gauge gives the finished raker an angle rather than the flat top you get with the standard gauges - apparently this makes for smoother cutting and allows the raker to "dig-in" slightly allowing the cutter to be more aggressive


Thanks for your report! 
And yes, it´s a nice side-effect of the design, that you get a slightly angled raker. Of course you can trim the raker further after using the gauge, leaving the tip alone, and ramp it even more.



jrs_diesel said:


> I just picked up some 1/16" (1.5875 mm) aluminum to make one of these gauges this weekend. I'll post my measurement from a new loop of Oregon 91PX.


Ok, another 3/8 low profile chain I think, and a different manufacturer. Soon we can make some conclusions about different pitches and brands.
I´m not so sure your material for the gauge is appropriate. Aluminium is weak and soft, you can only use it for measuring, certainly not using a file onto it.
With its thickness you´ll get very small cutting angles. When your chain has similar measurements like my Carlton low profile chain, then you´ll end up with angles in the region of 3 - 4 degrees.



Del_ said:


> It got me to thinking that maybe a measuring gauge could be made and then adjusted to specific parameters experimentally by precision bending.
> Using no math at all. Just use a gauge like Waynebd had made, use it on a chain, take it to the woods, bend accordingly. Repeat.





waynedb said:


> It wouldn't be hard to tweak a slight bend in the gauge to either raise or lower it relative to the raker. Not sure what that would do to the linearity of the angles over the life of the cutter, but I think it would be fine to allow a bit of adjustment in the field.


I thought about this possibility as well 
I made some simulations with such an approach.
The linearity is harmed - the more you bend it.
When you don´t have the proper material thickness at hands, you can bend too thick material down - or the other way round bend a too thin material up.
When looking at the numbers of gauge design 2, you´ll see, that there is a small bump of the values of cutting angles in the middle wearing region. So you start with a brand new chain with a normal desired cutting angle of 6 - 6.5 degrees. This value climbs up a bit to 7.0 degrees in middle wearing state and then falls down to 6 degrees at the end of life point. When using 1.2mm material and not bending.
Let´s take the example of the 1/16 inch alumium material given above. You can bend it down, so you have you normal cutting angle of 6.3 degree at the beginning, with my Stihl RM chain example.
Compared with the 'normal' 1.2mm setting, the following happens: The angles rise up in the middle up to 8.5 degrees and then fall down to 7.5 degrees at the end of life point. So the small bump from above gets now a larger (higher) and wider bump. You´ll get cutting angles in the region of 7.5 to 8.5 degrees most of the time compared to 6.0 - 7.0 degrees in the original design, so more or less an average of 8.0 degrees compared to 6.5 degrees.
But maybe in this example it would be better to bend the gauge not completely down to match the starting raker depth of 25 mil but stay a little bit higher for compensating the given overshoot.
The better approach is to use a material in the right region, so that you can take it without bending or leaving only a small need for a slight bending.
The 1.2mm material is in the sweet spot without the need for bending and assuming common 'normal' cutting angles.
The 1/16 inch material (1.6mm) seems a little bit too thick to me. On the other side I wouldn´t go below 1.0mm material, it becomes unstable and you´ll soon get very large cutting angles.
Material in the range of 1.0 to 1.4 mm (40 to 55 mil) should be fine.
When using the 1.2mm material and looking for the common cutting angles, I would second Del_´s opinion, use it, leave the math alone and bend it slightly if needed 
Like mentioned above, it´s questionable if 'ham-fisted' and 'precision bending' are a good couple 


___________________________________

Nice to see that some life got into this thread and the theory landed finally in the practical field


----------



## waynedb (Dec 16, 2019)

..reporting back as promised...

The weekend milling session went well - I used the gauge a few times to touch up the rakers; it worked great, quick and easy to use and the chain seemed to cut nicely. As mentioned, I'm milling some quite dry Aussie hardwood, so that is slow going and pretty dusty regardless. I did do one crosscut on a ~4' redgum log - went through like butter - nice chips!

I do think I could perhaps go a touch more aggressive for milling and take the rakers down a little bit more - perhaps a thinner gauge material might be worth an experiment. The next thinner available thickness is 0.9mm (compared with 1.2mm currently) which would give a theoretical average of 7.1 degrees raker angle - worth a try.

Thanks again Hannes for gifting such a nice little tool.

Without wanting to hijack the thread, here are a few pics...


----------



## hannes69 (Dec 17, 2019)

waynedb said:


> I did do one crosscut on a ~4' redgum log - went through like butter - nice chips!


  



waynedb said:


> I do think I could perhaps go a touch more aggressive for milling and take the rakers down a little bit more - perhaps a thinner gauge material might be worth an experiment. The next thinner available thickness is 0.9mm (compared with 1.2mm currently) which would give a theoretical average of 7.1 degrees raker angle - worth a try.


You could try it, but I would consider: Your theoretical average would be 7 degrees taking your measurements, but you already mentioned, that your real results were more similar to my Stihl 3/8 chain (what I would expect, I think that the results regarding the cutting angle should be very similar between different brands when taking the same pitch), so your real cutting angle average would maybe be more in the range of 8 degree with highest values of 9 degrees. A cutting angle of 9 degrees with hardwood (and I have read that redgum seems to be very hard) is very demanding. The saw has to deliver the power to get this to work and beside that wear of the chain, the bar, the rim and so on rises up. I made some tests with an old chain with very short teeth (let´s say 40 mil next to the end of life marking on the tooth) and using very aggressive cutting angles in that region of 9 degrees. The result was that the chain soon lost some of the teeth - even when only cutting softwood. Ok, when very short, they break as well regardless of the cutting angle, but not so many in such a short time like in my test.
What I want to say: There is an upper limit for a useful cutting angle. Going beyond that some unwanted side effects start to rise.
Maybe you could get 1.0mm material (it´s quite common here in Germany) or bend your gauge slightly down or try to lower the material thickness in the filing region with a file or sand paper (should be fairly easy to take away 0.1mm to get to 1.1mm thickness, and if necessary and possible take another 0.1mm away for 1.0mm thickness).



waynedb said:


> Without wanting to hijack the thread, here are a few pics...


Nice setup  And an interesting material, this kind of wood...


----------



## Chiefhobbs (Sep 20, 2020)

This thread seems to be as valid today as it’s last thread in 2018.


----------



## arathol (Sep 20, 2020)

Meh, seems like a lot of effort to re-invent the wheel. I just went to Lowes and bought one....


----------



## chipper1 (Sep 20, 2020)

arathol said:


> Meh, seems like a lot of effort to re-invent the wheel. I just went to Lowes and bought one....


You may want to hit the cutter with 15-25 strokes before your the rakers .


----------



## arathol (Sep 20, 2020)

Yeah that picture was just to show how it works....and it does work very well. But yeah the chain did need some work...


----------



## U&A (Sep 20, 2020)

chipper1 said:


> You may want to hit the cutter with 15-25 strokes before your the rakers .



[emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]


Sent while firmly grasping my redline lubed RAM [emoji231]


----------



## chipper1 (Sep 20, 2020)

U&A said:


> [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]
> 
> 
> Sent while firmly grasping my redline lubed RAM [emoji231]


You know how it is, oh wait, maybe not  .
Just drove past your place .


----------



## Huskybill (Sep 21, 2020)

When the chain teeth are sharpened so much the rakers are almost flush and it's cutting saw dust and not big square chips making two passes with the flat raker file will will bring the rakers within spec. If not make three passes on each raker. It's no big thing. When I file the teeth I make the exact same passes on them too. I never had a problem sharpening chains.

to check the raker depth look down the front of the bar due balling the teeth and takers depth. We're talking a spark plug gap space.


----------



## SEAM (Sep 21, 2020)

In this day and age some people need a computer-derived formula to get their a$$ wiped properly...

A good eye and common sense will usually get the job done (I am referring to the filing issue here).


----------



## Huskybill (Sep 21, 2020)

The raker filing is over blown.


----------



## Mike Kunte (Sep 23, 2020)

*Progressive filing method update and a question....*

I have been using the progressive method for adjusting my depth gauges ever since Hannes69 started this post, and I made my own gauge. I since purchased the Stihl gauges, and have had excellent results, as witnessed by my previous feedback posts. I understand the distinct difference between the constant depth gauge setting and the progressive method, the latter leading to a greater depth gauge setting toward the end of cutter life.

Although I only use Stihl chains, I regularly grind chains for a good customer who only uses Husky (Oregon) chains. As a result, I purchased the Husqvarna file gauge in order to properly set his depth gauges. Here is the question:

*Does anyone know whether the Husky gauge is progressive*? I ask this because every time I lay my Stihl *constant depth gauge* across the tops of the cutters, the depth gauges lie exactly flush with the top of the gauge (which BTW is set at 0.65mm (about 25 thou)). How is this possible, unless the Husky gauge is a constant depth gauge? I assumed by its design that it would produce a progressive depth gauge setting.

Has anybody here checked whether the Stihl filing gauges produce similar results? I would love to know! Hannes69? Philbert?

Thanks again for all the interesting info in this post.

Mike


----------



## arathol (Sep 23, 2020)

Of course the Husqvarna gauge is progressive. It wouldn't work if it wasn't. One end rests on the cutter and the other end on the chain. As the cutter is filed back it gets lower, so the angle changes, which in turn changes the height of the cutter.
As long as you sharpen correctly to keep all the cutters the same size it doesn't really matter. Both gauges will produce the same results, ie depth gauges that are also all the same size, which is ideally what you want.


----------



## Mike Kunte (Sep 23, 2020)

arathol said:


> Of course the Husqvarna gauge is progressive. It wouldn't work if it wasn't. One end rests on the cutter and the other end on the chain. As the cutter is filed back it gets lower, so the angle changes, which in turn changes the height of the cutter.
> As long as you sharpen correctly to keep all the cutters the same size it doesn't really matter. *Both gauges will produce the same results*, ie depth gauges that are also all the same size, which is ideally what you want.



Hey Arathol,

That is why it was so strange to me that a progressive gauge would give the same depth gauge height as a constant gauge. The depth gauges set by progressive gauges should be lower that those set with a constant gauge. Right? That's the whole point of progressive filing - to make the depth gauges lower in order to preserve the cutting angle.

*Both gauges will produce the same results - *This can't be - there should be a difference between constant and progressive gauges...

What am I missing here?

Mike


----------



## arathol (Sep 23, 2020)

Mike Kunte said:


> Hey Arathol,
> 
> That is why it was so strange to me that a progressive gauge would give the same depth gauge height as a constant gauge. The depth gauges set by progressive gauges should be lower that those set with a constant gauge. Right? That's the whole point of progressive filing - to make the depth gauges lower in order to preserve the cutting angle.
> 
> ...


You are overthinking a bit here...Doing it either way produces the same results, ie a depth gauge that is the correct height for the cutter. If you use a Husky gauge to set the rakers and they are all the correct height, *and* the cutters have been sharpened correctly so as to be all the same size, when you put the Stihl gauge on the chain it should show the same results, ie the rakers are all the same height and are sized correctly for the cutters. If you are just sharpening *without* correcting cutter sizes however there will be some differences in raker height. A chain with several different cutter sizes won't work very well though, but thats not the right way to sharpen anyhow....


----------



## TheTone (Sep 25, 2020)

Mike Kunte said:


> That is why it was so strange to me that a progressive gauge would give the same depth gauge height as a constant gauge. The depth gauges set by progressive gauges should be lower that those set with a constant gauge. Right? That's the whole point of progressive filing - to make the depth gauges lower in order to preserve the cutting angle.
> *Both gauges will produce the same results - *This can't be - there should be a difference between constant and progressive gauges...


Seems to me that if all cutters are filed to the same length, both gauges would give the same results. The advantage of the progressive gauge is that it adjusts for each individual cutter, so that the appropriate depth is set regardless of individual cutter length.


----------



## arathol (Sep 25, 2020)

TheTone said:


> Seems to me that if all cutters are filed to the same length, both gauges would give the same results. The advantage of the progressive gauge is that it adjusts for each individual cutter, so that the appropriate depth is set regardless of individual cutter length.


Yes, the Husky gauge adjusts for each cutter so the depth gauge can be set individually. The problem with that is when you have cutters that have been filed to different lengths, they are also different heights. If you have cutters of different heights the shorter ones won't cut well or at all, and the overall performance of the chain will be degraded.


----------



## PogoInTheWoods (Sep 25, 2020)

A common misconception and a lack of understanding about how saw chain actually works -- which has been covered extensively earlier in the thread as has the differences in cutting angle for varying cutter lengths/heights over the life of a chain that has been maintained with a progressive depth gauge tool.


arathol said:


> A chain with several different cutter sizes won't work very well though, but thats not the right way to sharpen anyhow....


That's also a matter of ongoing debate between the micrometer crowd and real world wood cutters and accomplished hand filers. No one in the real world is going to file every cutter down to the same length as the shortest one on a chain..., which is usually the result of some sort of damage that may only affect a few cutters. To sacrifice the perfectly good material left on all of the remaining cutters just to satisfy the "every cutter must be the same length" mentality is nuts and precisely where a progressive depth gauge tool is most valuable and why most folks use them.


----------



## arathol (Sep 25, 2020)

PogoInTheWoods said:


> A common misconception and a lack of understanding about how saw chain actually works -- which has been covered extensively earlier in the thread as has the differences in cutting angle for varying cutter lengths/heights over the life of a chain that has been maintained with a progressive depth gauge tool.
> 
> That's also a matter of ongoing debate between the micrometer crowd and real world wood cutters and accomplished hand filers. No one in the real world is going to file every cutter down to the same length as the shortest one on a chain..., which is usually the result of some sort of damage that may only affect a few cutters. To sacrifice the perfectly good material left on all of the remaining cutters just to satisfy the "every cutter must be the same length" mentality is nuts and precisely where a progressive depth gauge tool is most valuable and why most folks use them.


Really? I don't agree. Over 30+ years of cutting and hand filing and maintaining a small fleet of saws at times, I have seen plenty of chains that are filed poorly with cutters of all different sizes. If your chain has a half dozen cutters that are too low, those cutters can have a real effect on the overall performance. 







The low cutter won't be able to cut as deeply if at all, and the different size cutters will make for some vibrations too. If you have a few cutters on one side that are too short the chain won't cut straight either. It doesn't take more than a couple minutes extra to get the chain right, and "sacrificing good material" is what you do to make the chain cut right. This is one reason why there are so many people out there who can't get the saw to cut more than just "OK'.
I have used a Husky gauge for years, not because its progressive but because its small, its easy to use, it works well and makes quick field sharpenings so much faster.


----------



## PogoInTheWoods (Sep 25, 2020)

There are 26 other pages in this thread with an enormous amount of information and "experience" supporting the various views and theories. Whatever floats your boat is fine with me, but the physics are the physics when it comes to how saw chain works in general and how progressive style depth gauge tools indeed accommodate different length cutters on either side (or both sides) of a chain and still cut straight with shorter cutters still throwing chips when following a longer cutter..., all day long. 

I learned a lot during the course of this thread. You could, too.


----------



## PogoInTheWoods (Sep 25, 2020)

And if you haven't checked out this thread as referenced earlier here as well, there's plenty of good discussion contained there also.





Are FOP really progressive depth raker generators?


I have not used an FOP or their look alikes but, following discussions and some of the images posted in a previous post, I wonder if FOPs are really true progressive raker depth makers after all. So I put the following up for your consideration - it's getting close to ultra geeky (a bit like...




www.arboristsite.com


----------



## arathol (Sep 25, 2020)

Yup, 26 pages of theory started by somebody who can't even file a chain correctly by hand.....and most of seems based on the erroneous conclusion that each cutter operates on its own with no effect on the other cutters in front and behind.......thats a half hour I'll never get back.....once you learn that the higher cutters can keep the lower cutters out of the work your chains will cut a lot better.....


----------



## Brad Krause (Oct 9, 2020)

Thanks to the IGNORE feature to remove superfluous conversation, this has been educational. (Had to pull out some big words to keep the spirit of the thread alive--hope I spelled them right.)

Precision matters. Stihl just came out with a fuel injected saw (MS 500i) that's almost as powerful as a 661 around the weight of a 440. All fuel injection does is a more precise squirt. @hannes69 is similarly going for "the engineering thank makes cutters work" or "the numbers behind the experience." Experience does matter, @hannes69 is simply trying to quantify it.

At the same time, once the usefulness of a 6° constant angle is understood, slight imperfections don't matter--those happen quickly during use anyway--a 6° constant angle is "optimal on average" and makes the chain function like a military instead of a mob.

The improved raker gauge is much the same thing old guys do on an old chain by filing to the gauge then removing it and giving 2-3 additional swipes to improve the bite--this simply quantifies it. While the old guys are "good like a 4-barrel carburetor," @hannes69 is going for "fuel injection."

*I think the D-I-Y gauges are great for in the woods; in the shop @BobL has a faster, more accurate way of checking angle.

I've "learnt lots" at ArborisSite, Thank You to those who contributed!*


----------



## R2D2B9 (Nov 25, 2020)

I came to this thread looking for a solution to poorly cutting Oregon 91PX chain after sharpening by hand filing and using the traditional 0.025” depth gauge tools (sharp chain with the fingernail test, but chain produces dust and cuts slow). The depth gauge I was using was the Husky 3/8 low profile gauge, which is not progressive, even though the Husky gauges for other chain sizes are. I have a Woodland Pro (Carlton) chain I sharpened by hand filing that cut great after measuring each tooth with calipers and filing it to the same length as the others. I’ve since changed to using a rotary sharpener, similar to the Oregon Sure Sharp, which for me is faster and more consistent then hand filing, but did not resolve my cutting issue on Oregon chains. After much reading on AS it became clear to me the depth gauges on the Oregon chain were the culprit.

Unfortunately, no manufacturer makes a commercially available progressive depth gauge tool for low profile chains in the US (other countries have different product lines available). I believe this is because the geometries of low profile chain from different manufacturers differ enough that the gauges would not be interchangeable. Additionally there is some question as to how to handle the anti-kickback bumpers when using a progressive depth gauge; no manufacturer in the wants the liability of this and they would rather just sell more chains.

BobL also has some great information on checking chain angles in the shop. I did obtain a digital angle meter and attempt BobLs method, but I found it to be time intensive compared to using Hannes gauge. I also struggled given the small features of 3/8 LP chain, BobLs method may be easier to use on larger chain sizes.

I did not enjoy reading 27 pages of mostly non-value added text to find the few nuggets of useful information. Only a few folks were willing to pick up a pair of calipers and measure some different chains to share the information with the group. I did exactly that on a NEW Oregon 91PX chain with the following results:

α= 7.2
A= 176
B (type 1)= 155
B (type 2)= 263
C= 18
D= 425 (taken to first rivet, per Hannes note)
E= 169




When entering these numbers in the tool it becomes clear that a different thickness material is required to produce a Type 2 gauge for Oregon chains vs Carlton chains to deliver the appropriate cutting angle. I chose a 20 Ga 304 Stainless steel with a nominal thickness of 35 mil and readily available on Amazon ( RMP 304 Stainless Steel Sheet, 2B, 12 Inch x 12 Inch x 0.035 Inch (20 Ga.)). I noticed that for the first bit of cutter wear a traditional 0.025 depth gauge should produce acceptable results, although I'd note it's difficult to round the front of the raker with a file without risking damage to the freshly sharpened cutter; the Hannes gauge eliminates this issue.

I also measured my Carlton 3/8 LP chain and while my measurements were slightly different then Hannes, I generally agree with his measurements and recommended material thickness for his Carlton 3/8 LP Type 2 gauge. The closest material I could find to the required thickness is 18 Ga 304 Stainless Steel with a nominal thickness of 48 mil. This material is not as readily available as 20 Ga, but can be purchased on eBay from steel suppliers or sourced locally.

As discussed in previous posts and based on images of 3/8 low profile chain from Stihl I can tell the product differs from Carlton and Oregon, although I do not have a sample to measure, nor a need to generate a gauge for this chain.

With the above information in hand, I produced a Type 2 gauge for Oregon 91PX chain. The slot in my gauge is 0.142"wide x 0.710" long, width is a critical dimension, because of the design of the Oregon rivets. I cut my initial slot with a dremel more narrow than needed and then filed the slot to fit the chain properly. I used the guage on 3 different chains of varying wear, all three chains produced straight cuts, piles of chips and self-fed through the material with similar efficiency to the new chain I compared them to.




Because of the anti-kickback bumpers on the Oregon chain, I position the flat file above the front point of the bumper (as shown in image). In the three chains I tested, not altering the front point of the anti-kickback bumper did not seem to negatively affect the chain’s ability to cut. I also do not think anyone has posted an image of a Type 2 gauge on the first rivet after the raker as Hannes mentioned for LP chain.









There are probably hundreds of ways to sharpen chains and just as many opinions. My main motivation was find an easy and efficient sharpening method, that consistently produces a sharp chain that cuts close to or better than the efficiency of a brand new chain. I think Hannes work has accomplished that for me. Thank You Hannes for this great contribution.

Note: there is a .dxf CAD file attached of Oregon 91PX chain based on a scaled image I took of new Oregon 91PX chain. I used an open source CAD program called LibreCAD to generate this drawing.


----------



## PogoInTheWoods (Nov 25, 2020)

Well done, sir. Thank you for sharing.


----------



## Westboastfaller (Oct 6, 2021)

Mike Kunte said:


> *Progressive filing method update and a question..*





Mike Kunte said:


> *Does anyone know whether the Husky gauge is progressive*? I ask this because every time I lay my Stihl *constant depth gauge* across the tops of the cutters, the depth gauges lie exactly flush with the top of the gauge (which BTW is set at 0.65mm (about 25 thou)).


*Concerning 3/8 chain & 3/8 gauges

Carlton said their gauge could only reach a *MAX depth of 47 thou, where as needed was a 63 thou depth to maintain the same performance.That would be at the witness mark or center-back- rivet.

Per as hannes69 number charts shown on this thread do show Hannes's-Stihl-numbers were gauged just a few points of a degree under the 47 thou mark and equal that of the Carlton gauge on the Carton chain at end of chain-life. Assuming they were both softwood settings, Carlton just said "max". (30 To 47= 17 thou progression.)

Stihl hardwood setting maxed out at 42-43 thou on Stihl chain. 58 thou to maintain 6.3 degree. Roughly 15 thou progression. Whereas the husky gauge on the same stihl-chain-hard-setting only could max out at 34 thou and virtually-started at 20 thou, not 25. That's only a difference of 9 thou progression beyond 25 thou in a very full chain life. When I used Stihl chain I would use softwood setting and by rights I should have been taking off 5 thou off the new chain but there is nothing to file off.
The blue-tip Oregon chain that I also used has an aggressive factory hook. Although the Husky gauge does allow you to take some off with the soft setting on a new chain, I don't believe that chain comes preset new with 25 thou rakers??? (I think they are higher ????)

Anyway my thinking is the STIHL gauge 'performed' on it's own chain and just as well on Carlton chain as Carton gauge. May stand to reason that husky gauge had low numbers on Stilh chain because of the lower tooth but Carlton chain is also a taller tooth and the Stihl gauge still matched that of the Carlton gauge on Carton chain. Things kind of point to the Husky gauge being less capable all around.

IF in fact the husky gauge doesn't do better than it did on stihl chain then at best you are looking at 9 thou progression over 25 thou at end of chain-life. Likely only about 4 thou at half-chain-life. May stand to reason why you are not seeing a difference when you drop on the constant style gauge. Other contributing factors can be that the saddle gauge has wear and/or the rakers are not completely flush to gauge which may account for some. I get in the habit on putting the file on edge and quickly sliding the file back and forth to feel a bump. Otherwise it my look good but I still may get two more strokes off it.
What 3/8 husky chain was it, do you recall?
Next husky chain,, run it through Hannes's calculator against the 3/8 husky gauge Id be interested, said the guy that took 54 weeks to respond.


----------

