Bump. Used this tonight, much better.
New Oregon Narrow Kerf Chain and SpeedCut Guide Bars
- Thread starter Philbert
- Start date
Help Support Arborist Forum:
SawTroll
Information Collector
Bump
Oregon recently announced
SpeedCut Nano' - .325 low profile chain!
https://www.oregonproducts.com/en/speedcutnano
Philbert
Oregon recently announced
SpeedCut Nano' - .325 low profile chain!
https://www.oregonproducts.com/en/speedcutnano
Philbert
OBX Koastie
ArboristSite Member
I was considering it until I went on the Oregon website to learn #1 it is not available and #2 it is 0.043 gauge. I'll stick with my 95TXL.
I tried putting 80txl in the search box on that post two above and nothing sensible seems to come up. It really may be a new product, I see in the video they are using the Husqvarna battery saw I have the T536lixp I believe the call letters are, that has two drive sprockets available from Husqvarna one for 3/8lp and another for 1/4. So like the linked page shows you need a drive sprocket, a bar, and a chain loop.
Notice they call it a new low profile cutting system so as not to call it a "first ever" 0.325 low profile chain because the SL and LG product lines were trademarked as low profile and have been discontinued.
I also notice that the picture of the 7 tooth spur sprocket has squared off tips similar to the 6 tooth spurs common for 3/8lp. It also has the two flat method of attaching to the saw's motor shaft or output shaft in the case of those not direct drive. Kind of have to wonder how many sprockets they will offer as the Makita sprocket is perhaps a mm thicker than the Husqvarna one.
What is the likelihood this product is what they offered up for testing volunteers a few months ago.
If this is really a ground up new product I kind of wonder why they chose 0.325 as that is something familiar and this is not compatible with any existing 0.325 stuff the way it looks to me. On second thought a rim drive sprocket probably would be compatible, as long as it does not fall in the tooth notches.
I suspect it is a great product for the stuff in the video. At best expect 15% improvement over 90PX. I can not tell if the drive links are significantly smaller which seems to derail easier. Looks like the rivets are evenly spaced.
Notice they call it a new low profile cutting system so as not to call it a "first ever" 0.325 low profile chain because the SL and LG product lines were trademarked as low profile and have been discontinued.
I also notice that the picture of the 7 tooth spur sprocket has squared off tips similar to the 6 tooth spurs common for 3/8lp. It also has the two flat method of attaching to the saw's motor shaft or output shaft in the case of those not direct drive. Kind of have to wonder how many sprockets they will offer as the Makita sprocket is perhaps a mm thicker than the Husqvarna one.
What is the likelihood this product is what they offered up for testing volunteers a few months ago.
If this is really a ground up new product I kind of wonder why they chose 0.325 as that is something familiar and this is not compatible with any existing 0.325 stuff the way it looks to me. On second thought a rim drive sprocket probably would be compatible, as long as it does not fall in the tooth notches.
I suspect it is a great product for the stuff in the video. At best expect 15% improvement over 90PX. I can not tell if the drive links are significantly smaller which seems to derail easier. Looks like the rivets are evenly spaced.
This link seems to work:
https://www.oregonproducts.com/en/p...dcut-saw-chain-and-guide-bars/c/speedcut-sc-p
Philbert
Got a chance to compare the Oregon 80TXL 'Nano' chain (.325, low profile and narrow kerf, .043 gauge), side-by-side with some 91PXL (3/8, low profile, .050 gauge), and also some 91PS 'PowerSharp' (3/8, low profile, .050 gauge) on identical, Oregon, 15 Amp, corded electric saws, cutting the same wood samples. All are Oregon reduced kickback chains.
These photos show 80TXL (left), with .325 narrow kerf (Type 95VP - not in this test, middle), and the 91PXL (right) for comparison:
I cut well over 100 test 'cookies' in hard, dry, ash, cedar, and maple, as well as some fresh maple and spruce, of different diameters:
Also, tried a little 'noodling':
While I did collect some subjective cut times ('1 Husqvara', '2 Husqvara', . . . ), the interesting thing to me is how similar these performed. As a practical matter, the differences in cut times would not be significant to a casual user. Subjectively, the 'Nano' chain appears to perform slightly better than the 91PXL in smaller diameter wood, as well as softer wood. While the Nano chain did 'noodle', it produced relatively short 'noodles' and cut slower. The PowerSharp chain noodled best, in this test, with the 91PXL coming in a close second.
Differences may be more significant with lower powered (e.g. battery or pole) saws, and maybe some top handled saws used for pruning. Since the Nano chain requires unique sprockets (drive and bar nose), I would not be in a hurry to change over a saw that is satisfactorily running more conventional chain. But I am pretty sure that I would prefer it over 1/4-inch chain on those other saws. 1/4-inch chain always cuts slower for me, and does not Have a lot of cutter material for filing / sharpening. This might be it's best niche.
Philbert
These photos show 80TXL (left), with .325 narrow kerf (Type 95VP - not in this test, middle), and the 91PXL (right) for comparison:
I cut well over 100 test 'cookies' in hard, dry, ash, cedar, and maple, as well as some fresh maple and spruce, of different diameters:
Also, tried a little 'noodling':
While I did collect some subjective cut times ('1 Husqvara', '2 Husqvara', . . . ), the interesting thing to me is how similar these performed. As a practical matter, the differences in cut times would not be significant to a casual user. Subjectively, the 'Nano' chain appears to perform slightly better than the 91PXL in smaller diameter wood, as well as softer wood. While the Nano chain did 'noodle', it produced relatively short 'noodles' and cut slower. The PowerSharp chain noodled best, in this test, with the 91PXL coming in a close second.
Differences may be more significant with lower powered (e.g. battery or pole) saws, and maybe some top handled saws used for pruning. Since the Nano chain requires unique sprockets (drive and bar nose), I would not be in a hurry to change over a saw that is satisfactorily running more conventional chain. But I am pretty sure that I would prefer it over 1/4-inch chain on those other saws. 1/4-inch chain always cuts slower for me, and does not Have a lot of cutter material for filing / sharpening. This might be it's best niche.
Philbert
It looks like the sliding surface to rivet center is pretty much the same as the 95 class chain. Is the sprocket use-able for both the 95 and 80 class chain.
Probably should have compared 90px instead of 91px?
I guess the real comparison is with the mini Stihl 1/4 inch chain. (smaller than Stihl 13rm or Oregon 25ap)
Probably should have compared 90px instead of 91px?
I guess the real comparison is with the mini Stihl 1/4 inch chain. (smaller than Stihl 13rm or Oregon 25ap)
I was told that the sprockets for the Nano are specific for that chain. The Type 95 (.325 narrow kerf) chain uses standard .325 sprockets, but the thinner ‘micro-lite’, 0.050 gauge, guide bars.
I think that comparing the Nano chain with 1/4” pitch on a battery saw would be a good idea, as well as with Type 80 (3/8” pitch, low profile and narrow kerf, .043 gauge) chain.
The comparison in this case was to see if a saw OEM equipped with 3/8 low profile/ ‘Picco’ chain would get any significant performance boost with the smaller pitch / smaller ‘bite’ chain.
Classic .325 / 3/8 pitch trade off in this case.
Philbert
I think that comparing the Nano chain with 1/4” pitch on a battery saw would be a good idea, as well as with Type 80 (3/8” pitch, low profile and narrow kerf, .043 gauge) chain.
The comparison in this case was to see if a saw OEM equipped with 3/8 low profile/ ‘Picco’ chain would get any significant performance boost with the smaller pitch / smaller ‘bite’ chain.
Classic .325 / 3/8 pitch trade off in this case.
Philbert
The drive links are smaller on the 80 class nano chain than normal .325. The notch where the top of a spur sprocket will fit probably is specific to the nano product. The test would be to take a section of chain cut to encircle a rim sprocket and see how the two ends match up. The 0.043 3/8 lo pro seems to work in sprockets with holes the same size that will accomidate 0.063 gauge drive links. Most chainsaws that the operator would want to mount this chain too will need a specific spur.
Husqvarna is putting a similar or re branded mini .325 pitch on their latest battery chainsaw and using that as a selling feature.
Husqvarna is putting a similar or re branded mini .325 pitch on their latest battery chainsaw and using that as a selling feature.
Nano vs. 1/4" Pitch
Someone asked me to compare the .325" 'Nano' chain (top chain: both photos) against 1/4" pitch chain (bottom chain: both photos). This is a quick photo comparison only, not a cutting comparison.
Note that the cutter top plate length and width appear very similar for both chains. The side view, however, shows a much taller cutter on the Nano chain, poised to potentially take a deeper bite. The tooth spacing is impossible to miss: the 1/4" pitch chain has approximately 30% more cutters for the same length (2,400 drive links per 100' roll for 1/4" pitch, compared to 1,840 for .325"). The smaller chain should give a smoother cut, especially on smaller branches, but has more cutters to sharpen.
Philbert
Someone asked me to compare the .325" 'Nano' chain (top chain: both photos) against 1/4" pitch chain (bottom chain: both photos). This is a quick photo comparison only, not a cutting comparison.
Note that the cutter top plate length and width appear very similar for both chains. The side view, however, shows a much taller cutter on the Nano chain, poised to potentially take a deeper bite. The tooth spacing is impossible to miss: the 1/4" pitch chain has approximately 30% more cutters for the same length (2,400 drive links per 100' roll for 1/4" pitch, compared to 1,840 for .325"). The smaller chain should give a smoother cut, especially on smaller branches, but has more cutters to sharpen.
Philbert
Looks like you have Oregon 25ap as your 1/4 inch pitch subject for the pictures. Clearly the nano .325 has more effort put into the oiling aspect of things.
https://www.oregonproducts.com/en/controlcut™-saw-chain,-100'-reel/p/25ap100u
It does not appear to be on the Oregon website in bulk. It also appears they offer bars in 074 and 095 tail.
https://www.oregonproducts.com/en/search?q=80TXLNot sure about the sprockets, can you find the sprocket you used on the corded electric on the Oregon site?
They also seem to be playing games with the bar lengths. Previously and with "normal" Husqvarna called lengths at least in the small mount bars.
13" 56dl
15" 64dl
16" 66dl
18" 72dl
now they call 16" 64dl for this nano product. Perhaps the sprocket is assumed closer to the bucking spike.
https://www.oregonproducts.com/en/controlcut™-saw-chain,-100'-reel/p/25ap100u
It does not appear to be on the Oregon website in bulk. It also appears they offer bars in 074 and 095 tail.
https://www.oregonproducts.com/en/search?q=80TXLNot sure about the sprockets, can you find the sprocket you used on the corded electric on the Oregon site?
They also seem to be playing games with the bar lengths. Previously and with "normal" Husqvarna called lengths at least in the small mount bars.
13" 56dl
15" 64dl
16" 66dl
18" 72dl
now they call 16" 64dl for this nano product. Perhaps the sprocket is assumed closer to the bucking spike.
I try to understand the technical stuff. The marketing plans are something else, altogether.
Philbert
Philbert
Bump!
Philbert
Philbert
Similar threads
