# OH NO ! ! ! -- another CSM meltdown



## mtngun (Sep 8, 2010)

Ha, you thought I'd fried another engine ? 

The Oly exhaust has been pretty hard on one of the CSM wheels. The wheel keeps melting and shrinking.






I'm not going to replace it because I'd already decided that the wheels suck. They are always hanging up in the cracks of the bark or on knots. 

In order to roll reliably over douglas fir bark, the wheels would have to be 4" - 6", which isn't practical. I plan to revert back to a skid this winter, but it'll probably be an improved skid, though.


----------



## BobL (Sep 8, 2010)

I agree, bark with large folds in it is difficult to deal with but the way your wheels are set up they were never going to work properly anyway.

Since you mainly make cants I will restrict myself to making comments about making the first log cut.

If the bottom wheels are too near the cut (as your are) and they are too rounded (as both mine and your are) they will continually try to creep or ride up the log. 
My wheels are made of teflon and tend to slip rather than grip like roller blade wheels but they could be better especially as you say, in large bark folds.

The important thing is to get the wheels dow as low as possible which is is why I put my bottom wheels as far down as I could, like this.





Now even these are not low enough for some big logs and this is why I went for this design on my small alaskan.




The vertical rods can be replaced with different lengths of rod so the wheels always run on the vertical side of the log. I haven't used these much but so far they work extremely well and will be part of the design of my next mill.

I agree bigger wheels will help and I also plan to use 4" wheels on my next mill.


----------



## BIG JAKE (Sep 8, 2010)

I had the intent of putting wheels on, but I found that if I jack one end of the log up in the air a little it takes no effort anyway to mill. I've milled horizontal too and still don't see the need for wheels, although I agree it would help in some situations with no bark or smooth bark trees. The rough pondy and douglas fir bark catches the skid occasionally-but hasn't been an issue for me. 
Glad you didn't smoke another top end Mtngun-I'd like to see you get that outbuilding dried in before 1st snowfall!


----------



## mtngun (Sep 8, 2010)

BobL said:


> Since you mainly make cants I will restrict myself to making comments about making the first log cut.


Actually, the Alaskan is used mainly to cut slabs. I use the mini-mill to make cants. Are you still on meds ? 







> The important thing is to get the wheels down as low as possible which is is why I put my bottom wheels as far down as I could


That would help on the top half of the log, but would be worse than useless on the bottom half of the log. 

When you are milling a log that is laying on the ground, which is sometimes necessary, the CSM's ground clearance is very much an issue. If the wheels hung down low, they would snag the ground, branches, etc., and get hung up.

Yes, you could make the height adjustable, but that would add weight, and you'd have to pause to readjust the height several times for each log. That would only be acceptable if the height adjustment was locked/unlocked with some type of camlock, rather than bolts. And that could be done, if you had the time and the money and the motivation, as you seem to have. 

All of your points are valid, but there are compromises with weight, complexity, and bulk. 

I do enjoy watching you perfect the CSM, and I've borrowed a few of your good ideas -- like the on-board tach. But mostly, and not just with regards to CSMs, but firearms, vehicles, pocketknives, you name it -- I gravitate toward tools that are light weight, simple, reliable, easy to maintain, and economical. You seem to gravitate toward the Swiss army knife type of tool, with all the bells and whistles. They both have their place.


----------



## Brmorgan (Sep 8, 2010)

I was gonna say, if you blew another topend it might be time for another hobby!

I've never really seen the need for wheels below the cut - above would help me because the V edge of the depth post wants to dig into the side of the log if the cut is below the center of the diameter. I have some 3" steel ball bearing casters we use for small rollcases at the mill that I was thinking of rigging something up with eventually.


----------



## BobL (Sep 8, 2010)

mtngun said:


> Actually, the Alaskan is used mainly to cut slabs. I use the mini-mill to make cants. Are you still on meds ?
> 
> That would help on the top half of the log, but would be worse than useless on the bottom half of the log.



The wheel design on the small mill is such that the bottom half of the log is dead easy and there are no clearance issues. The vertical rod holding the wheels are flipped vertically so they are above the bar and if necessary shorter ones are used so they don't touch the ground.


----------



## mtngun (Sep 8, 2010)

Brmorgan said:


> I was gonna say, if you blew another topend it might be time for another hobby!


I would make a good product tester because if anyone can make something fail, it's me. I don't have to put any effort into it, it just comes natural. 

The Granberg skids do hang up sometimes. They are not big enough to navigate over larger bumps.

Other times the vertical post will dig into the edge of the wood.

I was thinking to make a skid mounted on the vertical post, with some sort of quick adjust for height, because any kind of skid or roller system has to be adjusted for height in order to be effective.


----------



## BobL (Sep 8, 2010)

mtngun said:


> I would make a good product tester because if anyone can make something fail, it's me. I don't have to put any effort into it, it just comes natural.



Well I figure products should have some level of bullet proofness about them so good product testers are valuable people to have around.



> The Granberg skids do hang up sometimes. They are not big enough to navigate over larger bumps. Other times the vertical post will dig into the edge of the wood.
> 
> I was thinking to make a skid mounted on the vertical post, with some sort of quick adjust for height, because any kind of skid or roller system has to be adjusted for height in order to be effective.



I see you have a metal ring over your inboard upright. On huds 3120 we use a metal ring which has a threaded hole in it and lock it at the appropriate vertical height. Not as good as wheels but much better than the naked upright.


----------



## mtngun (Sep 8, 2010)

BobL said:


> On huds 3120 we use a metal ring which has a threaded hole in it and lock it at the appropriate vertical height. Not as good as wheels but much better than the naked upright.


It's just a piece of plastic pipe, and yes, I copied the idea from you. 

See, I'm not opposed to CSM improvements providing they are simple, rugged, and light weight.  We learn a lot from each other on this forum.


----------



## discounthunter (Sep 8, 2010)

at least its cheaper to fix than a top end!

how about a skidder like the oem one but instead of flat metal maybe some half-round?


----------



## BobL (Sep 8, 2010)

mtngun said:


> It's just a piece of plastic pipe, and yes, I copied the idea from you.


We also tried plastic pipe but even though it was about 3/16" thick could not cut a big/strong enough thread in it to lock it in place up close to the height of the mill rails where it is needed. Eventually the pipe stretched and it dropped down away from the contact point..

Our next plan was to use thick plastic pipe that was slightly smaller in diameter than the mill upright so it clipped onto the upright as follows.





The other idea was to use several pieces of different lengths of this plastic pipe to so that some of the plastic was at the rubbing height. We couldn't find any of the appropriate size pipe at the time we were messing with this.




> See, I'm not opposed to CSM improvements providing they are simple, rugged, and light weight.


I never thought you were, your posts show you are a high-value no-nonsense product tester, prepare to call a spade a spade - absolutely essential in today's over-hyped world.



> We learn a lot from each other on this forum.


We sure do. If newbies reading this forum were to drill back through this forum they will see that 90% of what I try-do-use is copied from someone else.


----------



## mtngun (Sep 8, 2010)

I wish I'd thought of that ! ! !

But, it would probably rub off eventually. The saw pulls the CSM into the log pretty forcefully.



[/QUOTE]

I won't be doing the mods until late winter, so I have a lot of time to think about it.


----------



## Fallguy1960 (Sep 8, 2010)

Has anyone tried a ball shape instead of a wheel? Something like a billiard ball. That why there would be no edge to hook a grove. And as you go around the curve of the log it would ride above or below center on the ball. If I had Bob's ability with the computer I would draw it out. Because a picture is worth a 1000 words.


----------



## BobL (Sep 8, 2010)

mtngun said:


> I wish I'd thought of that ! ! !
> 
> But, it would probably rub off eventually. The saw pulls the CSM into the log pretty forcefully.



Just replace it when it does. We were using high pressure black PE irrigation pipe.


----------



## BobL (Sep 9, 2010)

Fallguy1960 said:


> Has anyone tried a ball shape instead of a wheel? Something like a billiard ball. That why there would be no edge to hook a grove. And as you go around the curve of the log it would ride above or below center on the ball..




If you look at my bottom wheel fitting you will see it is "ball like".





The wheel is made from black PE riding on the outside of a black PE irrigation pipe hex endcap, where the hex end has been turned into a hemispherical shape. It's both the slipperiness of the material and the shape that helps it stay down but on real rough bark it will still ride up the log.

The wheel above the bar is made of white teflon and is very slippery.


----------



## Andrew96 (Sep 9, 2010)

OK, I'm just going to throw this out feeling confident that you guys are open to different ideas...I know you are. 
Look at the other side of the problem. The rough surface you are trying to ride your wheels on. On one crazy edge I was cutting this past spring I was getting hung up every few inches...really driving me crazy. I screwed a bit of 2x4 (it was too short though) to the side of the tree and had a nice flat surface to 'bridge' the wonky bit. 
Now I throw a bit of 3/8" 3" x 8' ply in. Screw it to the side when I get a wonky bit of tree. Not the option you are after since Mtnguns trees all have wonky bark...but it works. My wheels rode nicely on it.


----------



## Woodsurfer (Sep 9, 2010)

That's a good idea. I have been using some hemlock I milled as-is and you can see all the places where I got hung up or kind of pivoted through the wood.

Another wacky idea could be to add longer skids to the mill to better bridge the rough edges...


----------



## BobL (Sep 9, 2010)

A side load board is a good idea for rough surfaces especially when the sides of the log are near vertical or the lower half of the log but it will be less effective milling the top 3rd of the log.

When I mill regular shaped logs which have no bark and hence have a smooth surface the first few cuts, where the wheels make contact with the log surface at a steep angle, can be still difficult. This not because of surface roughness but because the wheels will still try to ride up the log. In this situation, for the board to be effective it will have to be attached to the log at an angle to the log surface.

The wheel that generally rides up the log is the leading wheel. When this becomes a problem I reduced this effect by angling the mill so that only the trailing wheel contacts the log. This requires a bit more physical effort by placing pressure on the outboard side of the mille but improves the finish especially of the first cut. Lowering the wheels below the bar so they make contact lower down the side of the log further reduced the problem.


----------



## Brmorgan (Sep 9, 2010)

Woodsurfer said:


> That's a good idea. I have been using some hemlock I milled as-is and you can see all the places where I got hung up or kind of pivoted through the wood.
> 
> Another wacky idea could be to add longer skids to the mill to better bridge the rough edges...



That's not such a wacky idea - it's actually the first mod that Will Malloff suggests in his book and is something I have been meaning to do.


----------



## DRB (Sep 10, 2010)

Fallguy1960 said:


> Has anyone tried a ball shape instead of a wheel? Something like a billiard ball. That why there would be no edge to hook a grove. And as you go around the curve of the log it would ride above or below center on the ball. If I had Bob's ability with the computer I would draw it out. Because a picture is worth a 1000 words.



Like this? These are old office chair wheels.





I have made a set that can be mounted to the upper rails so that the wheels can ride down the side of my guide board in stead of the log. I have not tried these out yet. The wheels may put to much side loading on the guide board.


----------



## Fallguy1960 (Sep 11, 2010)

DRB that is more of what I was thinking. Larger diameter than the one Bob had. Have you had the chance to use them much yet? Do they what to ride up?


----------



## DRB (Sep 11, 2010)

Fallguy

They don't seem to ride up that I have noticed. The weight of the 088 seems to keep the mill down. I did break one of the 1/4" mounting bolts but they are easy to replace. I usually cut my logs into square cants then cut boards from the square cant. The wheels sure roll nice down the side of a square cant when cutting boards.


----------



## billstuewe (Sep 11, 2010)

As I am milling I think about your wheels and I think they would get in the way more than not. I use the crank/pully and it really makes the sawing easy. The only trouble I have had is on the bottom half of a sharp curved log the upright will dig in and I do like the PVC pipe idea. Try the pully system--it is pretty slick.







I now have this hook that holds the pulley on the end of the log--






This is how I attached the crank--notice the clamp on the pipe in front of the crank. It guides the string straight into the spool


----------



## mtngun (Sep 11, 2010)

Bill Stuewe, I admire your crank. If I milled a lot of big wood, I would definitely try cranking. As it is, I have to push the mill pretty hard on big wood (big to me, anyway) and it's very tiring over the course of a day. 

More often I mill 14" - 18" logs that are easy enough to push through, except for the mill getting hung up on bark and bumps, that's where an effective skid would come in handy.

BTW, do you have a remote throttle on your powerhead, so that your left hand is free to crank ?


----------



## BobL (Sep 12, 2010)

This is less of a problem for me that others but the way I see it the main problem with any skid, wheel or ball is when they even partially align themselves with bark or trunk folds. These gizmos will then tend to track along fold lines and if the fold happens to rise or fall may jam the mill and then require some effort to unjam it.





Whatever is used, it appears that it would be better if the gizmos are longer in the vertical dimension than any of the fold widths.

This leads me to two possible options, a wide skid or a wide roller. The bigger the log being sawn the wider these would have to be because the bottom and top edges of either a roller or wide skid can still track and fold. The way around this is an adjustable height roller or skid. 

So on my next mill I am thinking using approach but with 6" long x 1" diam plastic or ally rollers replacing this wheels.


----------



## billstuewe (Sep 12, 2010)

mtngun, I have no remote throttle. My left hand is on the chainsaw grip/throttle and I crank with my right hand and with my left I also guide the slant/angle of the mill to best navigate along the log. Sometime the saw end is in the lead, sometime the bare nose, depending on how it will slide easiest.


----------



## mtngun (Sep 12, 2010)

billstuewe said:


> mtngun, I have no remote throttle. My left hand is on the chainsaw grip/throttle and I crank with my right hand


That's odd, because your pic shows the crank handle mounted on the left side. Wouldn't it be more comfortable on the right side ?





I guess it would depend on where you are sitting or standing as you operate the mill ?

A remote throttle control is on my winter project list. Meanwhile, I've experimented with sliding a zip tie over the trigger. It is nice to be able to put both hands on the mill, but I'm nervous about the safety aspect of the zip tied trigger.

Good pics, BobL, and good point. I agree that the height of the skid/roller needs to be adjustable to be effective. And taller makes sense, too.


----------



## billstuewe (Sep 12, 2010)

Mtngun, Please so not try the zip-tie method. If nothing bad happens to you, the least you will do is burn out your clutch when the chain hangs up and you cannot let off the throttle fast enough. I have the old pick-up truck with the winch on the back and I always pick the log up and set it on something so I do not have to bend over so much and when I saw I am basically standing facing the mill in line with its long axis. Also, as BobL said in a couple of posts back in regards to the mill wheel riding up or down on the bark, " When this becomes a problem I reduced this effect by angling the mill so that only the trailing wheel contacts the log. This requires a bit more physical effort by placing pressure on the outboard side of the mille but improves the finish especially of the first cut." The crank system with the pully avoids this because the mill is being pulled towards the end of the log by the pulley and it pulls both sides pretty much equally. It is then very easy for me to guide which end of the saw leads with my left hand. I milled a bunch of 4/4 out of 8" cants once and used the crank on these 8" cuts and it worked very well. I use the crank on everything except very short cuts.


----------



## BobL (Sep 12, 2010)

billstuewe said:


> Mtngun, Please so not try the zip-tie method. If nothing bad happens to you, the least you will do is burn out your clutch when the chain hangs up and you cannot let off the throttle fast enough.



I don't know how often people's chains hang up but FWIW, if my chains hang I don't always let the throttle go. I leave it WOT, pull back on the mill and ease back into the cut. Folk with lots of CS milling experience (eg Aggiewoodbutcher) have used cable ties for many years on mills without problems and I have yet to hear about a clutch burning out due to using one. I use cable ties on my 441, Huds 3120 and used one my 076 for a while. The trick with cable ties is not to make them too tight so they can be slipped off very quickly. The advantage of having both hands on the mill, or the wrap handle and mill, means that if the saw does bog, one quick tug and the mill is usually free. If the operators hand is down on the trigger their arms and shoulders get sore very quickly making it harder to unbog the saw.



> I saw I am basically standing facing the mill in line with its long axis.



I can understand how having to hang onto the trigger and drive a winch leads an operator to use an "in-line" stance since the operator is closer to the trigger so their arms are not spread so far apart. However, my reading of the orientation/location of your winch handle is that the operators hand will have to be cocked or bent to hold onto the winch handle meaning the wrist would need to rotate to drive the winch. Also the operator has to lean over a little to reach the winch handle. I would have thought it would gave been better to locate the winch closer to the operator and to keep the hand straight and the wrist locked and then use the arm to drive the crank. If that is the case then have you considered a crank location on the inboard mill upright with the crank at 90º to the current position. Something like this.






This would allow an even more upright stance and make it even easier to turn the winch because the hand/arm would be more ergonomically located. Remember appropriate use of pulleys means the winch can be attached anywhere on the mill. To use the winch in this location would require only one pulley on the rear milling rail.

Ultimately, whether you use a winch or not I reckon standing behind the saw is a better place to be since it is opposite the sawdust ejection point although closer to the exhaust on mist stock saws. Winch operators might think about adding a T bar handle on top of the mill upright, a remote throttle on the left top side of the T-bar upright and the winch on the right - no or very little bending over after that?


----------



## billstuewe (Sep 12, 2010)

OK, I will correct myself by posting a picture. Here I am sawing with the Logosol but the stance is the same. The Logosol rail is not there so I actually move in behind the sawhead a bit, about where the rail is so the crank is not much further away on the AK III--I get right next to the log. It really is quite easy. The height does vary with each cut and I have cut some close to the ground, but I usually just set the log on something that gives a comfortable height.


----------



## mtngun (Sep 12, 2010)

You got a Logosol, too ?  You must have got bit by the milling bug pretty bad.  

Thanks for the pic. I guess the right handed crank would work it the log were off the ground and you were standing like in your pic.

I'll add a crank to my winter project list. I suspect the crank will only get used on the rare (for me) large log, but when you need it, you need it.


----------



## Andrew96 (Sep 13, 2010)

Well I've been thinking about this crank thing. To me...I couldn't come up with any benefits. It looks like I'm just going to twiddle a crank, rather than 'just' guide my somewhat self feeding saw. Then I thought about cutting uphill. I know, I know...but sometimes that's just where it lands and there is no way around it (obstacles, wind wrong...who knows). A crank seems like a good idea to overcome uphill cutting. On flat ground...I can't see any benefit.


----------



## BobL (Sep 13, 2010)

Andrew96 said:


> Well I've been thinking about this crank thing. To me...I couldn't come up with any benefits. It looks like I'm just going to twiddle a crank, rather than 'just' guide my somewhat self feeding saw.



I must be one of the laziest millers I know and I also don't see a need for a winch either - but that is just my personal preference. OK maybe if the cut is more than ~50"+ wide it might help keep some pressure up on the outboard side. To me using a winch on a mill on narrow cuts is a sign that perhaps the operator doesn't quite know how to setup a self feeding chain or they are prepared to run a blunt chain. But I also reckon do what ever works for you.



> Then I thought about cutting uphill. I know, I know...but sometimes that's just where it lands and there is no way around it (obstacles, wind wrong...who knows). A crank seems like a good idea to overcome uphill cutting.



OK - I'll pay that - maybe I need to get out into the bush more and get involved with obstacles.


----------



## mtngun (Sep 13, 2010)

BobL said:


> To me using a winch on a mill on narrow cuts is a sign that perhaps the operator doesn't quite know how to setup a self feeding chain or they are prepared to run a blunt chain.


Because my chains are not self feeding on large logs.

Optimal raker angle seems to depend on the width of the cut. Wide cuts seem to require MORE raker angle, or else much feed pressure has to be applied.

One chooses a raker angle that works best under "average" conditions, which for me is 14" - 18" logs. The same chain works miserably on 26" logs.


----------



## BobL (Sep 13, 2010)

mtngun said:


> Because my chains are not self feeding on large logs.
> 
> Optimal raker angle seems to depend on the width of the cut. Wide cuts seem to require MORE raker angle, or else much feed pressure has to be applied.
> 
> One chooses a raker angle that works best under "average" conditions, which for me is 14" - 18" logs. The same chain works miserably on 26" logs.



I agree one optimizes the raker angle to suit cut widths and powerhead capabilities but I have not observed higher raker angle improving saw feeding ability at wider widths probably because I am already operating at some sort of limiting values. Using the 076 or 880 in 40"+ wide wood, if I increase the raker angles above 7º the cutters just grab too much wood and stall the saw. I then find myself holding the saw back. The wider the wood the more sensitive these saws are to stalling on higher raker settings.

On less than 24" logs I can up the raker angles to over 8º and not stall these saw and the cutting speed increases accordingly but it leaves a much rougher finish and there is a tendency to washboard. This is why I typically use 6 - 6.5º raker angles on the big saws.

I'm now thinking that if your saws are not self feeding in wider cuts this may be a problem of insufficient cutter hook, not insufficient raker angle. Increasing raker angle indirectly increases hook but that is not always the best way to do it.


----------

