# Face cut too small?



## Haywire Haywood (Dec 17, 2006)

This is the picture on Madson's homepage. I'm no pro, (it's a stretch to even call me an amateur) but isn't this face cut a tad on the small side? I mean it needs to be more open doesn't it? Looks like it would close mighty fast. --Ian


----------



## Kneejerk Bombas (Dec 17, 2006)

A small face angle is common in logging to save valuable lumber. It's also easier to cut at a lower angle.


----------



## Haywire Haywood (Dec 17, 2006)

Ah, I've been reading D. Dent's book and applying that to what I see.

thanks,
Ian


----------



## smokechase II (Dec 17, 2006)

*yep*

That is too small.

In conifers, often there is no need to have a wide "open face" notch to get accuracy. They commit to the fall really well. When this big they go over with real power and obstacles generally move out of their way. When dropping something this big and valuable if there isn't a good bed available it is not a bad idea to hit a 40 inch'er about 40 feet away dead on to slow it down, (as it comes out by the roots), and save lumber all the way up. Provided that second tree was marked also, of course.
(In the old West Side days, they used to drop big big cedar cross ways first, just to make a soft bed, then put the big big fir across the cedar. Those cedar got re-logged for shake bolts decades later.)

Even though I'm not a logger, I'm still gonna stick both boots in my mouth and say the face should have been about twice as high. There is space on the butt swell to go for more of an opening and still save butt log timber.

{Remember, one strength of the Humboldt face is that the cutter goes as low as he can avoiding butt swell, and then the bottom of the face comes out of the butt swell area. From the standpoint of the butt log, this cutter isn't wasting a single board foot.}

Of greater concern is the shape of the face. If one side closes before the other in a really short face like this one it can serve as a Dutch step or angled Dutch face, if you will. Note how the cuts don't come across clean. This can rock the tree early in the fall and if the cutter hits stumps and breaks stems in big money sticks like this one too often. He'd better be the owner otherwise he'll be looking for work elsewhere.

However, it does look like the face is evenly short on both sides and with obviously no high point in the center, he was probably OK.


----------



## smokechase II (Dec 17, 2006)

*rethinking what I just said*

However, looking over that cutters arms.

I think I'll back up and say that face was absolutely, positively, undoubtedly and objectively perfect.

*Perfect, without question.*


----------



## smokechase II (Dec 17, 2006)

*Lets ask a reall faller*

John Ellison:

This picture you posted of your partner cutting a big cedar in Alaska.

Were you comfortable or was it an accepted standard to use short faces like this?

Did it do anything to slow the fall?


----------



## John Ellison (Dec 17, 2006)

I agree Smokechase II, they both look too small. Tho they are both probably better fallers than I will ever be. I am guessing they had their hinge wood cut up by boring or side cutting. My friend sent that pic to me the year after I left and I dont know all the particulars.
Seems like in a lot of pics of really big trees the face looks too small.


----------



## Gologit (Dec 17, 2006)

I know Haywire means well and isn't being critical of a process he has no real-world understanding of. That being said...if the tree went where the fallers wanted it to,didn't break up,the buckers could get to it,and the skidders could get it out, the idea of a face being a little too small (or appearing to be)isn't really important. Guys falling this kind of timber every day usually know what they're doing. If they don't know what they're doing they just aren't around very long. The bull-buck runs them off or they get scared and quit or maybe they get hurt. Or worse. Do experienced fallers make mistakes? Sure they do. Just not very often .


----------



## fishhuntcutwood (Dec 17, 2006)

I've certainly never falled anything near this size, but my guess would be that once this tree gets moving, and the holding wood is cut up nice enough, that it's going to go regardless. The weight and speed of this tree is going to rip it right off the stump. It may well have been bore cut to make sure the holding wood is thin enough when the tree started to go and there would be minimal fiber pull. A smaller tree, yes this'd be way too small, and the tree could hang up on the stump. But a monster like this, once it's weight is commited and you've got it through enough of it's arc, nothing short of terra firma is going to stop it.


----------



## Haywire Haywood (Dec 17, 2006)

Yes, I'm not trying to say that the professional in the picture doesn't know what he's doing. I'm just comparing what I'm seeing to what I'm reading in the book and getting some input from those that do have the experience.

just trying to learn a bit,
Ian


----------



## Gologit (Dec 17, 2006)

Haywire Haywood said:


> Yes, I'm not trying to say that the professional in the picture doesn't know what he's doing. I'm just comparing what I'm seeing to what I'm reading in the book and getting some input from those that do have the experience.
> 
> just trying to learn a bit,
> Ian



Point taken. Its hard to tell from the picture but there may have been a reason for the shallow face. Every tree is different and big trees are always different. Read your Dent and Beranek...they're pretty much the Bible for this stuff. Read the posts on AS...you can really go to school here. Watch experienced fallers at work. But don't ever,ever, think that just because you've done everything right that the tree will do exactly what you've planned for it. You can fall fifty trees absolutely where you want them and that fifty-first tree will humble you for days afterward. Have fun and be safe. Bob


----------



## clearance (Dec 17, 2006)

We cannot see the whole picture, maybe the guy is going to jump it to avoid something, maybe he is using this tree to hammer a snag, another tree, dominoing, who knows? But yes, the undercut does look a bit shallow, too bad we can't see his other stumps. I have looked at a lot of big tree stumps, some after the wood has been yarded, some before. Usually a reason for why they do what they do.


----------



## TreeBarber (Dec 17, 2006)

With trees that big one concern is what your have to do with it once it’s on the ground. It still needs to be bucked in to moveable sized pieces. It’s important to have the log on the flattest possible surface, or you risk wasting lumber (cash out of the faller’s pocket). Likely one reason for having a small face cut is to get the tree away from the rising root wad going up into the stump. 
That’s my $.02 worth.
Cool picture though!!!


----------



## fishhuntcutwood (Dec 18, 2006)

TreeBarber said:


> With trees that big one concern is what your have to do with it once it’s on the ground. It still needs to be bucked in to moveable sized pieces. It’s important to have the log on the flattest possible surface, or you risk wasting lumber (cash out of the faller’s pocket). Likely one reason for having a small face cut is to get the tree away from the rising root wad going up into the stump.
> That’s my $.02 worth.
> Cool picture though!!!



Whaddya say Pat, that's 'bout as big as the one we took from behind your neighbor's house, eh? 

We need to get you a new Avatar! Here, try one of these. Two of those are actually you. Guess which one isn't....


----------



## TreeBarber (Dec 18, 2006)

Sorry if I caused any confusion, the point I was trying to make is getting the log as far away from the stump as possible so the log will lay flat. Usually the ground around such a large tree slopes up toward the stump. If the tree were to come to rest with the butt end close to the stump likely the butt would be higher and there would be a portion of the log (the middle) suspended above the ground, making it very difficult to buck such a large tree. 
I hope that makes since.


----------



## TreeBarber (Dec 18, 2006)

fishhuntcutwood said:


> We need to get you a new Avatar! Here, try one of these. Two of those are actually you. Guess which one isn't....
> 
> 
> I'll take the first one.
> Thanks...................


----------



## fishhuntcutwood (Dec 18, 2006)

TreeBarber said:


> I hope that makes since.



OK, gotcha now.


----------



## fishhuntcutwood (Dec 18, 2006)

TreeBarber said:


> I'll take the first one.
> Thanks...................



Yer welcome. I lightened it up as much as possible, but still dark. Sorry my friend.


----------



## Tree Sling'r (Dec 27, 2006)

Every tree has a diff. situation. I am sure both of these fella's knew what they were doing or else they would not be there.
Just because it is big does not mean your undercut needs to have a big "birds mouth" or needs to be deep. Like I said every tree is diff.


----------



## fishhuntcutwood (Dec 28, 2006)

I agree. Like I said, I think a tree this size is going to go no matter what once it's passed through an obligatory arc and is committed, small face or not. It's going to come off the stump sooner, but that may be what he wanted.


----------



## Freakingstang (Dec 28, 2006)

I would have thought #3 would have been the best for a new avatar pic....


J/K :hmm3grin2orange: :biggrinbounce2:


----------



## fishhuntcutwood (Dec 28, 2006)

Freakingstang said:


> I would have thought #3 would have been the best for a new avatar pic....
> 
> 
> J/K :hmm3grin2orange: :biggrinbounce2:



I would have too, but you've got to know Treebarber. I tried!


----------



## gumneck (Dec 28, 2006)

fishhuntcutwood said:


> I've certainly never falled anything near this size, but my guess would be that once this tree gets moving, and the holding wood is cut up nice enough, that it's going to go regardless. The weight and speed of this tree is going to rip it right off the stump. It may well have been bore cut to make sure the holding wood is thin enough when the tree started to go and there would be minimal fiber pull. A smaller tree, yes this'd be way too small, and the tree could hang up on the stump. But a monster like this, once it's weight is commited and you've got it through enough of it's arc, nothing short of terra firma is going to stop it.




So I can better understand, Why would this be way too small for a smaller tree? The weight of a small tree up top relative to its trunk should have the same forces on its hinge as a large tree top relative to its trunk and hinge. I may not be wording my thought right and apologize if I'm confusing. 

Tks.
Tom


----------



## fishhuntcutwood (Dec 28, 2006)

gumneck said:


> So I can better understand, Why would this be way too small for a smaller tree? The weight of a small tree up top relative to its trunk should have the same forces on its hinge as a large tree top relative to its trunk and hinge. I may not be wording my thought right and apologize if I'm confusing.
> 
> Tks.
> Tom



Nope, I understand ya. I've had small to small/medium cedars and firs hang up on a small face. They just don't have the mass to accelerate enough through the arc to break the hinge. I know what you're saying about the relativity of the hinge to the size of tree, but they will hang on a face proportional to the one in the original picture here. The mass of a tree that size is just simply immense. Steel cables and red iron wouldn't hold that thing once it got moving.


----------



## smokechase II (Dec 28, 2006)

*smaller faces in big trees*

The reason smaller faces in big trees work overall is the power behind them.
fishhuntcutwood is right. Once a big tall conifer starts over you have to have serious skill or serious incompetence to change its route. It is the same physics as in smaller trees, just more of it.

While most would say try for something bigger than the faces in this thread, it is by no means mandatory that a bird’s mouth (aka open face) be the face cut. 

Take a look at this Norwegian felling guide:
http://www.fellesforbundet.no/Felle...miljø og sikkerhet/PFD-filer/sikker hogst.pdf

Go to page 6 and you'll see the drawing with this post.

When you look at that notch, you can see the primary reason for its shape and size, save wood on the butt log. Part of the reason they do this is that you can generally get away with the shallow face compromise on smaller timber.

This isn't to say that in the right setting an open face notch isn't appropriate.


----------



## smithie55 (Dec 29, 2006)

I've seen where tree's of that size with a large face will slide of the stump before it reaches the appex of its fall. More than likely the faller wanted the tree to stay put on the stump until it reached the appex, like someone said we can't see the whole picture. The placement is obviously crucial.
maybe he needed to jump the tree alittle to place it in the correct place on the ground. If you talk to any of those seasoned fallers they can tell you the most incredible ways of manipulating a big tree or any tree for that matter.


----------



## arboralliance (Dec 29, 2006)

*Many reasons...*

Its obvious from the pic he knows what he wants...

The relief on the lip of the base cut shows the intent...

On a basal back cut there at that level it would hang on in the fiddle back lumbar of the lower stump region move slow and intentionally and pop n slide around rotating through its fall and sit down beside the stump, probably avoiding both a really dirty butt and an impossible clean up cut and avoiding hanging up in the other huge trees as seen in the rear of the pic...

A cant hook is used to do this on smaller lumbar, try cant hooking that baby and you'll be flung into next year...

You cannot have a tree that size hang up period...

Getting rotation during fall is the only way to avoid this nine times out of ten the other is to have an explosive release of hinge wood which punches it through other trees branches as is the case here...

This tree cannot be compared to smaller or even medium trees the power and force from the weight is in thousands of tons and a pinched bar here will flatten the bar like a toy...

Also notice the face of the meeting top cut and bottom cut created in at the meeting point on the left of the cut face this creates the pivoting face, almost a box hinge/scarf effect which will hang on almost still when the tree is on the deck...

What the lumber jack knows which we forget or haven't seen is the action in the trunk of a 200' plus tree and how it will resonate back through as movement begins from the initial and following back cut; imagine for moment what would happen to a 200' plus trunk following through the movement created from the back cut, something we cant see in smaller trees but is amazing to watch and play with in larger trees, you can get these babies to dance down to the ground weaving in and out and around other trees and branches...

Also at those heights it only has to move an inch at the horizontal ground plane to move 20 - 30 feet at the top thus putting it into a hang-up with any larger face cut; get that baby to punch out the hinge and shoot through the limbs twisting other limbs off as she twirls to the ground with a nice swagger to weave through the other forest beauties and lay down sweetly right next to me an i kin step off the stump en onto her belly and doc her up...

Just my two (point two, cant forget Johnnies GST) cents worth...


----------



## Lee Bradley (Jan 5, 2007)

Haywire Haywood said:


> This is the picture on Madson's homepage. I'm no pro, (it's a stretch to even call me an amateur) but isn't this face cut a tad on the small side? I mean it needs to be more open doesn't it? Looks like it would close mighty fast. --Ian



Seems plently big and getting bigger by the second; that tree is its way away and the faller is getting gone after cutting as much hinge away as he dared.


----------



## fishhuntcutwood (Jan 7, 2007)

Lee Bradley said:


> Seems plently big and getting bigger by the second; that tree is its way away and the faller is getting gone after cutting as much hinge away as he dared.



This brings up a good point. You're looking at it as a back cut, we're looking at it as a face cut. Which is it? I would have thought he'd of had his saw out of the cut by the time the back cut got this open.


----------



## stihl 440 (Jan 7, 2007)

I'm pretty sure it says on madsens site that he is putting in the face.


----------



## John Ellison (Jan 7, 2007)

The more I look at it the more I think Lee Bradley is right. Looks like the top of the power head is facing us. If he were cleaning up the face cut I cant see doing it in that position. You cant tell from the pic but he is right in the middle of hauling a himself outa there. Pictures sure can be deceiving.


----------



## Lonnie (Jan 7, 2007)

Looked like it was to small to me as well.I don't cut tree like most cutters here they like to use notches that is realy tall and not to deep in....I have a cutter that works with me and he is always asking how i get my tree to jump off the stump i tell him its the notch ...Im not sure wot the up side down notch is called but it the one i use he uses the old school...But i do cut mine taller then the one showed in the pic but i also do not cut trees as big as that one.


----------



## beelsr (Jan 8, 2007)

Well, after seeing this picture for the first time, I can remember saying to myself, I'd hate to be the photographer standing in the frontal danger zone. Gave myself a shiver and moved on to the rest of the site.

Reading Lee's post, it makes more sense as this being the backcut because while I can imagine a guy takign pictures of the face cut being done, there's not way in freakin' hell, I'd be taking that picture if the tree was moving and that's the front cut.... :jawdrop: :jawdrop:


----------



## fishhuntcutwood (Jan 8, 2007)

beelsr said:


> ...not way in freakin' hell, I'd be taking that picture if the tree was moving and that's the front cut.... :jawdrop: :jawdrop:



If that's the face (front) then the back cut hasn't been made yet, and the tree is perfectly safe. Rather, if that's the backcut, and the tree is on it's way over, and we're looking into the expanding backcut the photographer is in and unsafe place, unless he's zoomed from 100' away.

I vote it's a face cut, and the faller is finishing his sweep up into the holding wood checking his gun, and the smiley has fallen out.

Jeff


----------



## beelsr (Jan 8, 2007)

fishhuntcutwood said:


> If that's the face (front) then the back cut hasn't been made yet, and the tree is perfectly safe.



Agreed - if the back cut hasn't been made yet. 

My comment was in response to "the faller is getting gone". If he's bugging out and that's the face cut, I'd be gone already... :hmm3grin2orange:


----------



## arboralliance (Jan 8, 2007)

*Are you guys for real?*

C'mon!!

No way is that his back cut!!

He's got the saw in there to check the trueness of the face cut after checking its clean (most would know without looking if it came clean wouldn't they) and you all check the true direction of the base line with the saw on big timber then step back around bringing the saw around at mid rev to create a datum (base line) mark to set your back cut height against, whether above or below your baseline, cmon guys...

He would not be standing there still, in that size timber, or any size timber, with that much open/lift/exposure in a back cut; any logger knows to run when the back cut "begins" to open or suffer widow makers like top outs, limb shear, root lifts or all three and a host of other deadly events when she starts to go...

Ive sprinted from big Pines with the 088 and 36", been over 50 or more metres way still sprinting and flattened as limbs soar rearwards, this guy is not cutting the back cut period...

The reason (besides all the other reasons I've given in my previous post) you don't cut a big face is the face he would have cut there would create a scarf or wedge of wood in this instance weighing around 200 pounds give or take, now try whacking that scarf out or a bigger one with an axe or hammer?

Darn, the poor guys also gettin his footing, thats real steep country there guys take a look!!!!

Or, more likely, he's plunged in to start back cut in a big sweep to centre leaving pop out back release section for explosive release...


----------



## John Ellison (Jan 8, 2007)

I'm still going to keep my changed opinion and go with Lee that the tree is on its way over.
How many west coast fallers would want their picture taken with a Humboldt that had the diagonal cut level ( looks sloped down a little). If the tree is still upright and that is the face cut it really looks more like a conventional notch with no attempt to slant the lower cut. Not likely.
It could be argued that where the bark has been scored off is where he changed his mind, but I think it has been done directly above it too. Its not apparent because of the angle. Probably was a wedge/s there that fell out.
Yep, if that is the face cut he probably did have a hard time getting it out. A Humboldt that is made right will fall out. How many flat top stumps do you see on the west coast?


----------



## smokechase II (Jan 8, 2007)

*face cut*

John Lee:

The cuts top and bottom don't match.
The faller is sighting, not escaping or finishing the back-cut to the hinge.

I think that is his face and I'll bet it was safe for the photographer to be there. I don't think that tree went over until it had been beavered on the backside for a good bit of time.


----------



## John Ellison (Jan 11, 2007)

Maybe I'm wrong.:hmm3grin2orange: My computers picture does'nt show that detail, where I could say for sure that the cut isnt just opening. Maybe it looks the same on the other side and instead of sighting he is telling the photogrrapher to get outta there.


----------



## Rick Alger (Jan 11, 2007)

*Face cut too small*

I vote for back cut. 
The chopper is on the uphill safe side of the tree where he would be finishing his cut. The brush has been cleared to his left so he's apparently been around the stump already. He's probably looking toward his escape route and keeping his hand on the butt as he pulls out the saw for leverage and a push off.


----------



## Lonnie (Jan 11, 2007)

Rick Alger said:


> I vote for back cut.
> The chopper is on the uphill safe side of the tree where he would be finishing his cut. The brush has been cleared to his left so he's apparently been around the stump already. He's probably looking toward his escape route and keeping his hand on the butt as he pulls out the saw for leverage and a push off.



I vote face cut....the top of the notch is striagt across and the bottum is the hards cut to makes it looks to me he missed the cut for the line at bottume of the notch is not right not a striagt clean cut as it would be if it was the back cut...+ If u was that guy would u still be on ya knee when that big hehehehe was starting to fall i know i wouldn't be.... A man would have to run looks like a mile to be out of the way heheheh....


----------



## Rick Alger (Jan 11, 2007)

*Back cut*

Lonnie, you make a good point. He should be way out of there. 

But I still think its a back cut. 

The saw looks like it's more than half way through the stump. I don't think anybody makes a notch that deep. I think the uneveness and the cut at the base are because he didn't have quite enough bar to make the cut in one swing, so he had to trim the root swell and cut in from the place he trimmed to get at the center. 

Also, if it's a face cut, where is the notch wood?


----------



## fishhuntcutwood (Jan 11, 2007)

Lonnie said:


> I vote face cut....the top of the notch is striagt across and the bottum is the hards cut to makes it looks to me he missed the cut for the line at bottume of the notch is not right not a striagt clean cut as it would be if it was the back cut...+ If u was that guy would u still be on ya knee when that big hehehehe was starting to fall i know i wouldn't be.... A man would have to run looks like a mile to be out of the way heheheh....



Ok, you lost me after "face cut...."



Rick Alger said:


> I don't think anybody makes a notch that deep....where is the notch wood?



And Rick you make good points. I see you're a horse logger. A deep face can be used on light head leaners or even straight spars out here. And I've had and seen smilies tumble down hill and out of sight. 

Welcome to AS.

Jeff


----------



## Tree Sling'r (Jan 11, 2007)

It's a face cut.
And who cares what it looks like - have you cut anything this big? Easier to be a critic than a cutter.


----------



## Gologit (Jan 11, 2007)

Tree Sling'r said:


> It's a face cut.
> And who cares what it looks like - have you cut anything this big? Easier to be a critic than a cutter.



Well said.


----------



## arboralliance (Jan 12, 2007)

*Well said...*



Tree Sling'r said:


> It's a face cut.
> And who cares what it looks like - have you cut anything this big? Easier to be a critic than a cutter.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Tree Sling'r
> It's a face cut.
> And who cares what it looks like - have you cut anything this big? Easier to be a critic than a cutter.
> ...



Both well said, it surprises me that people comment with such determination when the evidence to the seasoned is so blatantly obvious, I guess the seasoned must see this as entertainment or risk being driven insane by the one sided argument...

A great thread thanks to all...


----------



## Lonnie (Jan 13, 2007)

*face cut to small*

Im seeing more then a argument here .....Im seeing safety....If the face of it is to small and others was cutting the face like this in white oaks or hickory's they are in trouble...If it is the back cut then the person taking the pic is in danger as well... Safety is wot I see and either way they was something wrong with the pic..I admitt Im not perfect .....


----------



## fishhuntcutwood (Jan 13, 2007)

Lonnie said:


> Im seeing more then a argument here .....Im seeing safety....If the face of it is to small and others was cutting the face like this in white oaks or hickory's they are in trouble...If it is the back cut then the person taking the pic is in danger as well... Safety is wot I see and either way they was something wrong with the pic..I admitt Im not perfect .....



This is far from an oak or hickory. If it's a back cut, they're both in the wrong place. The faller should be gone, and the camera guy is in the wrong place. If it's face cut (again, my vote) everyone is good to go.

Has anyone actaully called Madsen's to get perhaps a definative answer?


----------



## beaverb01 (Jan 18, 2007)

I DO NOT think the faller is finished cutting yet. I DO think the guy knows what he's doing or has [email protected]#%s the size of skidder tires! If it's the latter, he's not long for this world.


----------



## Ryan Willock (Jan 18, 2007)

When falling large white pine I typically use a smaller face and often a humbolt (I know that is NOT a WP but hang with me for a minute) for a multitude of reasons. Old growth white pine is brittle compared to a young tree (this applies to timber in general as well) and I want that butt on the ground first so I don't rail the tree. I also use a thinner hinge to help eliminate stump pull (you can also bore the heart out amongst other things), in other words I want the fiber to break sooner rather than latter. 

I have a neighbor that is a retired red wood and doug fir logger from the Ncoast of Cali, he has spent quite a bit of time on my logging jobs watching how we do it back here and he has told me that from what he has seen watching me (he's even cut a few trees with me,also taught me how to use a tree jack) he says that fir is very similar to WP. I took the long way around the barn, I know.

Point being pretty much what others have already stated that the faller had his reasons. Keep in mind that Old growth is completly differant than second or third growth timber. It alot more brittle and unforgiving. I've cut quite a bit of old growth poplar and white pine and can tell you that you had better know what you are doing when you lay it down!


----------



## Ryan Willock (Jan 18, 2007)

Well crap, I have some pics of some of the old growth that I have cut and logged but they won't upload for some reason. Hey, fishhunt, you anygood with pic probs??? If so I'll see if I can email em' to you and let you post them if you don't mind. Goes for anyone else for that matter.


----------



## fishhuntcutwood (Jan 19, 2007)

Sorry, I'm not the guy for problem solving when it comes to computers and pics! If no one else steps up, and volunteers to play with them, lemme know, and you can email them to me, and I'll try to upload them, but I don't know anything about "making" them work. 04Ultra is pretty good with pics.....

Jeff


----------



## SWE#Kipp (Jan 19, 2007)

Ryan what format are the pictures in and what size ??
you can use paint to save in an other format if that is the problem ?


----------



## Ryan Willock (Jan 19, 2007)

SWE, I think there are jpeg.


----------



## SWE#Kipp (Jan 19, 2007)

ok and what is the size of the pics ??


----------



## Ryan Willock (Jan 19, 2007)

nota clue!LOL I'm not tech savvy....My wife has to down load them for me on to the computer!!LOL


----------



## Ryan Willock (Jan 19, 2007)

All I can tell you is that I haven't changed the way we down load them on the computer but since the site did their "upgrade" I haven't been able to upload pics.


----------



## MS-310 (Jan 19, 2007)

Where can I find an book about falling trees? Many for fie wood but I want to know more tricks then what I know...thanks alot


----------



## SWE#Kipp (Jan 19, 2007)

Ryan you got a PM ,,,


----------



## FSburt (Jan 20, 2007)

*Falling WWP*

Hey Ryan do you put a gap in your undercut when you fall large pine? I know the fallers in my area would put a gap in the undercut and also take a snipe off the lip to sloping cut to get the butt end on the ground first. They were falling large diameter suger pine which is the same wood characteristics as WWP. They would also do this on large Cedars.


----------



## SWE#Kipp (Jan 20, 2007)

Here are the pics from Ryan !!



























The pics don't shown in the thread still works if you click on the attachments in bottom of if ,,,


----------



## SWE#Kipp (Jan 20, 2007)

More of Ryan !!


----------



## Ryan Willock (Jan 20, 2007)

Thanks Kris! 

Burt, no I don't use a gap in the undercut. I've tried it but haven't found it to be of any benifit with white pine although some times I will exaggerate the snipe if there is excessive root flare or if I have to fall a double across itself if that makes since.

The first pic of me up in a poplar was taken about sixty feet up. I'm setting the 5/8'' (3/4'' swaged down to 5/8) main line off my big skidder on the tree to pull it as it had almost all of its weight on the backside as well as back lean. Norrmally a tree like that I'd jack it over or push it with the skidder if the ground permits (it didn't) but it just so happend that my log loader was about 70' away and the we had a slight wind blowing that way. The tree had to come down that day as we were moving the landing the next day. It almost doesn't look that high if you look at the bottom right of the pic you can see some slash up aginst the tree, that was from the landing, kinda tells you about the ground huh? The pile was made when I grubed the landing. That was the logging of Dillion's Fork in sept-nov of 05. Good boundry of timber, 50 acres of good timber but short ground. Couldn't keep a lead.

The big double poplar was on a 3 acre boundry I on the top side of Green Hill. The tree measured 12' across the widest point and measured 23' in circumfrance! I had to bore holes and use spring bordes (I'm fond of cutting sapplings for this task) to be able to fall it. No real good lay for it so a layout was built for one half and the other was laid to the hill, it saved to a 10'' top for the one with no lay and the other saved all the way. It had be bucked into logs so the skidder could move it, mostly 12's adn 14's.To you westerners Cat ground for sure! In fact I had an skidder roll just a hundred yards bellow the big double! Took my 550 and a friends 650 to put humpty dumpty back on the mountian! A lot of this tract was prebunched with the dozer so the skidder could reach it. That was the last boundry I cut before selling out. I had pics of the falling of the big double the next day but the camara fell out of my pack on the skid road on the way out and got runover by the dozer! They don't make em' like they used too! Oh, it was so steep in there that 12 other loggers turned it down! Had to run chains on the skidder even with four new tires and it was DRY!


----------



## Ryan Willock (Jan 20, 2007)

I shut down all logging operations in end of July of '06. The next set of pics of a boundry I bought on Conners Mountain. I bought the timber in January and we moved into it in Febuary. The truck road in was tight to say the least!
On the left going out of the landing we had a 5' drop off into the creek if you ran off the road and believe me there was NO room for erro! The road was just a shelf cut into the side of the mountain, it used to go to the house and farm of Posy Conner, the man the mountain was named for. I spent two days on that road with the dozer trying to widen it but there was just too much rock. My truck driver said that was the worst 1/2 mile of road he had ever seen in 30 years of log truckin! Any way the pics you'll see are first of the crew gathered around the big pine and then of me falling and bucking it. The guys had their hard hats off ONLY for the pic, all other times they were required to wear them! The butt log had a little rot in it but the rest of the tree was sound. Even with out the butt cut the tree scaled 1.8mbf! With it it would have been around 2500mbf! TIMBER! No lay could be built for it since there was a small spring below that the landowner got his water from. Almost forgot that my hopped up 066 from Dennis, its running a 36'' bar with Oregon fullskip full chiesl.


----------



## SWE#Kipp (Jan 20, 2007)

BTW Ryan very nice pics


----------



## Ryan Willock (Jan 20, 2007)

Thanks, I've got loads more.


----------



## SWE#Kipp (Jan 20, 2007)

you can mail some if you like


----------



## smokechase II (Jan 20, 2007)

*stump height*

Ryan:
In your second photo, where you are on the downhill side with the saw above your head, are you starting a bore?

Is that tree alive or dead?


----------



## Ryan Willock (Jan 20, 2007)

Its alive but on the down hill swing. Somke, glade you mention that about my postioning. The tree had quite abit of head lean so I bore cut the down hill side to set up my hinge and then finished the back cut from the uphill side for saftey reasons. At the point where the felling cut was made the tree was almost 4 1/2' in diameter,4'4'' if memory serves me correctly. I held heavy on the up hill side and it centered up on the lay. I had to put up against another tree to hold it on the hill, if it went to the bottom it would have been a pain to get. The tree was just over 200' tall, one [email protected] of a white pine! The guy that ran log loader for me has been logging for 50 years and he told me that is the tallest tree he has ever seen!


----------



## smokechase II (Jan 20, 2007)

*skill*

Ryan:
You've definitely got some skill with a saw.
I've never seen anyone bore above their head before.

Trivia, if I felt that boring the downhill side was necessary, I would have placed the face about a foot and a half lower. Making it more reasonable to bore. It almost looks like you started a face cut down there.

I realize there is a lot more cutting to do lower and that the wood is denser. However, working with cuts lower, provided risks above are not imminent, is a lot easier. FSBurt made a similar point about driving wedges.

Also, on steeper ground, it is impossible to do much without extensive springboarding.

I added the photo below just for admiration. I've never even seen an operation like this before.

At your local mills, do they require a flat butt?


----------



## John Ellison (Jan 21, 2007)

That is some picture SmokechaseII. I get a little weezy over a drop off like that. Have read about the old timers with the metal tip boards. They would stand on the board and hook one foot under the board then jump/hop the board around to a different angle. I would have a real hard time doing that over a drop off.


----------



## Tree Sling'r (Jan 21, 2007)

Take this for what it is worth... no picture to prove it.
In 1997 I was falling around Truckee, Ca on Donner Pass and had a tree that marmed into three about 7 feet up. The DBH was around 8 feet before the marms.
I fell a tree up against the truck to stand on and it was just enough to get the first and second trees faced up and cut. Each one was around 30" in diameter. In order the get down the third and final tree I fell the entire base then long butted it to process it from there.
It was pretty steep and I was pretty spooked on the first two but it all worked out in the end. Every since then I have packed a disposable camera in my pack.
Like I said, no proof - so take it for whats its worth.


----------



## fishhuntcutwood (Jan 21, 2007)

smokechase II said:


> Ryan:
> You've definitely got some skill with a saw.



Agreed. Nice Humboldt man! 

And smoke, what a cool pic of the faller on the spring board. I've never cut from one....I'm sure it'd take some getting used to.


----------



## Lonnie (Jan 21, 2007)

Great pics burt and smoke......I also cut with the upsdie down notch lol Thats wot i call it ...I asked my forster how many does it he said I was the only one he has working for him to do it...I know I use it to get the most of of the log....


----------



## Ryan Willock (Jan 21, 2007)

The butt had old fire damage in it so in the interest of better holding wood I faced up higher than normal. Boring over you're head does take alot of getting used to, especially when using long bars (that was a three foot bar on my 066) it makes getting the back cut level very difficult and requires GREAT care when starting the bore or kick back can result in a VERY UGLY manner!! For those of you who are viewing that are NOT PRO's DO NOT ATTEMPT THAT CUT!!!! VERY DEADLY!!!! I wouldn't recomend anyone to try that that has not had alot of PRO experanice (firewood cutting does NOT count!!!) to even consider that! I don't like having to carry an actual spring board with me but they are much nicer to work off of than the sapling poles I normally use!LOL I had to take a 14' cut off the butt to get to sound wood.


----------



## smokechase II (Jan 21, 2007)

*wood use*

Lonnie:

Humboldt’s getting the most wood out of a tree can be a miss-statement.
Look at Ryan's tree with the Humboldt in it. {If it were solid all the way down.}
Assume that you do not want the butt swell to get in the way. Then this Humboldt is placed perfectly and the Humboldt is the best choice for wood utilization. The face comes out of the stump and not the butt log. Same call if you're dropping downhill.

However, if you want the most wood to make it to the mill. You need to go with a conventional face. What were talking here is a lower stump than a Humboldt can achieve and utilizing the fiber from above the back-cut area and that means less waste. 

What about the open face? Often not a bad choice for utilization. It can be a problem when compared with the conventional as the pull out from the hinge on the conventional does not come from the lumber area of the butt log. It comes from the _fiber area_. This can be mitigated a bit with center face boring and side cuts, sometimes.
The Humboldt also has lot of problems with this pull out. (This can be mitigated a bit with center face boring and side cuts, sometimes.) This is why my Father-in-Law wouldn't usually allow Humboldt’s for his mill in WESTERN OREGON. He was one of those Mennonite ancestry folks that had lived through the depression. Didn't waste nothing. 

Look, I know that chipboards aren't esthetic, but they do a lot for us.

The shortest stumps, if cutting is safe, rule.


----------



## FSburt (Jan 21, 2007)

*Slight mishap with holding wood*

here are some pics of a tree that had one side of the holding wood cut off with disasterous results. This was one of the incidents that caused CDF to start a chainsaw training program in CA.


----------



## Ryan Willock (Jan 21, 2007)

Opps! Did anyone get hurt?


----------



## FSburt (Jan 21, 2007)

No Ryan the person that fell the tree was out single jacking and was at the stump when it all went down. Not sure if he is still employed by the agency or not last I heard it was not looking good for him. This happened 3 yrs ago.


----------



## Davey Dog (Jan 22, 2007)

FSburt said:


> here are some pics of a tree that had one side of the holding wood cut off with disasterous results. This was one of the incidents that caused CDF to start a chainsaw training program in CA.



Holding wood mishap...... All I see in those pics is a BREAK CUT that twisted...
That back cut is way to high for the face.. Look at those pics again.....
You can clearly see where the back cut and the face cuts meet... There is of course a 5-6 inch difference in the location, but it was cut all the way through.. There is no hinge in those pics....  
The person who did that is really lucky that they only droped the tree on that truck.... There could have been a person standing there.

I am not trying to sound like a jerk, but people need to take that into consideration... Our work is dangerous enough, with out people ((who dont know exactly what they are doing)) coming out and doing that.....


----------



## Davey Dog (Jan 22, 2007)




----------



## SWE#Kipp (Jan 22, 2007)

Some more pics from our in house logging photographer


----------



## Ryan Willock (Jan 22, 2007)

The pic doesn't show it too well but it was a nice level back cut about 4 inches above the apex of the face, I really didn't want that thing kicking back on me. Looking at the hinge you can now see why I moved so far up the tree for the face. Looking at that big hole its almost hard to believe that I save anything out of that tree let alone 80+% of it! It was a one to two at a time afair skidding those logs out due to where the tree had to be laid. If the tree had been on relitively flat ground then it could've been skidded in two trips.


----------



## Ryan Willock (Jan 22, 2007)

Say any of you west coast boys wanna let me come fall with ya'll for a while? Have saws will travel!:hmm3grin2orange:


----------



## smokechase II (Jan 22, 2007)

*Falling elsewhere*

Ryan:

There might be jobs available working on fires.

Don't count on this. But there are times where we run out of local resources.
*(This probably only has a 1 % chance of working out.)*

When I worked with Burt on a fire in NE Oregon two summers back, there was a local faller they hired for only a few days cause they couldn't get anyone for a full two weeks. Nice kid, about age 20, came from a logging family and was a very decent cutter for his age but had never worked on a fire. But we were bringing in Cutters from Southern Cal for that one. 

Occasionally, finding fallers is difficult.


----------



## smokechase II (Jan 22, 2007)

*Photos from Cal*

Burt:

We love you.

If there is one thing I enjoy almost as much as cutting it's looking at photos from somebody else’s screw-up. Those photos are just as good as watching video of Portland Oregon folks sliding into each others vehicles on ice. I'm headed to work on a Monday with a great frame of mind.

This could have been just fine, hidden from supervisors, quick road clean-up and who would have known? 

If:

1) Vehicle parked out of reach, say two tree lengths away blocking the road.
2) Second person securing the other direction from traffic.

But then, we wouldn't have gotten to see these great photos.

So Burt:
{Nice tease, "This was *one of the incidents* that caused CDF to start a chainsaw training program in CA."}
Got any more photos for the good of the order?

We'd be glad to accept more high back-cut, no hinge, vehicle not moved, no road guard pictures.

All the Best


----------



## SWE#Kipp (Jan 22, 2007)

Thanks for all the pics Ryan 
I really enjoy them !!!


----------



## Ryan Willock (Jan 22, 2007)

Thanks for posting them!


----------



## Tree Sling'r (Jan 22, 2007)

FSburt said:


> here are some pics of a tree that had one side of the holding wood cut off with disasterous results. This was one of the incidents that caused CDF to start a chainsaw training program in CA.



There is no weight in the tops of yellow pine snags or most other snags for that matter. Pretty obvious the dufus who cut this keep sawing and hoping for it to go rather than putting in a wedge and getting some lift. Thats why its good to be able to judge a lean.
Ya, I know wedging snags is extremely dangerous, but when doing so you will hit the wedge once, then look up. Hit it once again then look up. Then you double up. Same thing, hit and look.
Pine tops will rarely fold back like white fir.

I love these pictures. Makes me feel warm inside.


----------



## Lonnie (Jan 22, 2007)

smokechase II said:


> Lonnie:
> 
> Humboldt’s getting the most wood out of a tree can be a miss-statement.
> Look at Ryan's tree with the Humboldt in it. {If it were solid all the way down.}
> ...


 Yeah I know i lose some when im on a flatt..I drill both the side to save o fibers and the middle of notch if it is big enough.......Around here when they cut a log to send to mill with the regular cut they have to add 6 iches to the cut( say a 16' logg would be cut 16'6'') so im not losing any relay on the flat.I know the louder man like my cut better then the other cutter we have..He cuts just a little the way in for the lower part of notch the bout 12'' up the tree he starts with the top part of notch..Thats how most people cuts tree here...Takes longer to cut the way they do it then the way i do it.... Thanks for the info smoke...


----------



## Lonnie (Jan 22, 2007)

Davey Dog said:


>



They are some older guys around here that cuts like that....They cut deep in front till the tree starts to get thier saw.. Then the cut the back out of it....I personal have not seen it nore do i wish to.......CRAZYYYYYYYYYYY


----------



## smokechase II (Jan 22, 2007)

*no wedge no cigar*

I bet TreeSlingr is right.
Didn't establish an insurance wedge and tap it in as he cut from the back.
Kept cutting till he heard the crunch of fiberglass and metal.

I'm gonna guess that he parks his vehicle with forethought and precision the rest of his life.


----------



## Gologit (Jan 22, 2007)

Great pictures! One rule of thumb...when you go to the woods,park where the fallers park. You're safe there...usually. Of course if they all move their pick-ups you'll probably want to move yours too.


----------



## Lee Bradley (Jan 23, 2007)

Humboldt’s gets the most wood out of a tree? Well sometimes if the trees have big swell it doesn't hurt to move the cut up to use a Humboldt. If the trees don't have a big swell put the cut right on the ground, much easier yarding and rubber tired machines can run right over them. How many BF is left in the stump above?


----------



## Tree Sling'r (Jan 23, 2007)

Lee Bradley said:


> Humboldt’s gets the most wood out of a tree? Well sometimes if the trees have big swell it doesn't hurt to move the cut up to use a Humboldt. If the trees don't have a big swell put the cut right on the ground, much easier yarding and rubber tired machines can run right over them. How many BF is left in the stump above?



No problem logging and yarding around my Humboldted stumps, swelled or not. Or any of my co-workers for that matter. Big dawgs, long bars and experience my friend. Besides what you think gets wasted by a "higher" stump is actually wasted on the butt of a conventional cut.


----------



## Davey Dog (Jan 23, 2007)

On this matter I also have to agree with tree sling'r.... I have an old man that I work with alot of the time who uses Humboldts 85% of the time... I use to try and argue the fact that he was waisting BF by using that type of face... Although in his defense... I have personaly seen him run Humboldt faces not more than half a foot off the ground on tree with less swell..... 
He is a good faller that has been doing this kind of work since I was in diapers.... I no longer argue with him, I am just glad I have some one like that around to learn from..... I also agree with big Dawgs, long bars, and mucho experience..... I will be there one day....


----------



## Kiwilogger (Jan 24, 2007)

First time I have looked at this thread. Firstly, I have no experience with huge timber like that in post #1, but, IMO, its definately the face cut. (we Kiwis call that the scarf!). No real logger is gonna sit there and pose with a stick that size going over. That would be sheer lunacy!

Secondly, re: the tree falling on the truck, as already stated, theres no hingewood there at all! That is why that is a monumental balls up. But, why the hell was the truck parked where it was? That is dumb, dumb, dumb!

Just a quick question re: felling cuts. Do you guys use "wing" cuts? You make the cuts both sides of the trunk at the same height as the bottom of your scarf to a depth of approx 1/10th of the diameter of the tree, or up to about the depth of your bar. These "wing cuts" prevent draw wood, or the big long splinters left on the stump. I guess you probably don't need to with hardwoods maybe?


----------



## smokechase II (Jan 24, 2007)

*wing cuts*

Wing cuts aren't used on the West Coast except in certain species.

For some reason in most of the softwoods here, this pull wood is most commonly out of the stump or with just a little butt swell it’s outside the bole. No loss of lumber.

I was taught not to mess with the holding wood at the corners unless you're trying to do something with the tree. For instance, a faller could do a wing cut out of one side if they were trying to pull the tree the other way.

However, to reduce barber chair risk, wing cuts are a good idea. So with a heavy green leaner that you are dropping with the lean. Roger those wing cuts and make them close to the other felling cuts.

There is an issue with twisted grain where I've been told wing cuts help in some species.


----------



## Kiwilogger (Jan 25, 2007)

Here in NZ, any pulled wood, even on the outside of the log downgrades the log. Potentially from a pruned butt, or an A grade log down to a lower grade, meaning in real terms, a $300-$500 log worth maybe $100-$140.

With our wing cuts, They only go into the sapwood, and really don't get used to turn a tree. For that we might pull out the dutchman, or maybe overcut the bottom of the scarf a bit. (reaching round we call it).

Often, in steep terrain when felling against the lean (yarder felling) we will reach around on the bottom side (of the tree) of the bottom cut in the scarf (did that make sense?), and only make a wing cut in the top side of the scarf. This saves a lot of work if you want the tree on the deck, and also it saves lugging your saw around to the bottom side of the tree, then back up again. It does cut off a small amount of hingewood, but is safe and an approved technique. 

Fellers here in NZ get audited once a month, stumps checked etc.

What are the rules like over in your neck of the woods regarding driving trees? Here, we are allowed to put 1 tree onto another tree, but only 1 onto 1, and the driven tree must have a wedge in it. We are allowed to do bigger drives, but must have an observer.


----------



## smokechase II (Jan 25, 2007)

*many questions*

I don't work for industry, so take this with a big grain of salt.

I'm not aware of any substantial penalties on a butt logs value with the fiber pull you mention. If it doesn't come out of the lumber part of the bole it doesn't affect the scale.
The main concern with a pulling here is "root pull" and how it can alter a trees fall. More than wing cuts, (a term I'm not used to other than here on arbotistsite), cutting off a roots influence - if it is near the hinge or back release - is what is emphasized.
Also, has mentioned earlier, cutting the corners at the same level as the back-cut can be part of a fallers barber chair avoidance.

Dutchman are used, but most of industry fallers do so against their company’s policy. It also can be against company policy to work under a tree being driven but driving does occur. It is preferred when removing snags for safety.

The best certification I'm aware of is what is going on in British Columbia. Go to http://www.bcfallersafe.org/pdf/FINAL - BCFSC Faller Field Exam and Evaluation - Mar 1 (2).pdf .
This is their timber feller evaluation form. There was a thread just recently on the cost of certifying new fallers and in BC it is $9,000 +. It involves a lot more training and testing that takes one to the level of being ready for this field test.

You can search this test on adobe for corner up (wing cuts - I believe), Swanson (Humboldt undercuts) and so forth.


----------



## smokechase II (Jan 25, 2007)

*corner holding wood*

Kiwilogger:

On the above British Columbia test/form. Look at page 21:

"Acceptable standard: Includes appropriate undercut and backcut are completed from high side, are slightly off level, depth of the undercut between 25% and 40% of the tree diameter. Undercut is cleaned out. The cuts forming the opening of the undercut are 1/3 to ½ the length of the top cut. Backcut is slightly above the undercut, slightly off level. Holding wood is preferably maintained across the entire stump *but at minimum must be on both corners. * Also see *Note"

"*Note:
Timber 60 inches or more in diameter can have the heart wood cut out of the stem, *but holding wood must be maintained on both corners of the stump to maintain control of the tree."*

This is what I have been taught with regard to the corners, (sapwood).

Trivia; not the same for the face center bore restriction of 60" or more in diameter.


----------

