I only want to know "the bar weight"

[Bobcat]

I am starting to really like the Oregon chainsaw bar product, and send an email to Oregon asking for "their chainsaw bar weights".
I explained in my email that I did find a lot of useful info on the Oregon website, but could not locate bar weight info. I aslo explained my main interest was the 3/8 x .50 x 20" vs the .325 x .50 x 20" was my prime interest. I am not an engineer, but Oregon's suggested method to determine bar weight is quite unlogically to me. If I wanted to determine the weight of two kinds of "steel toe uninsullated all leather logger boots", I see no reason to weigh the two big boys wearing them.

I guess I could call Monday and order one of each bar, and weigh them on a percise scale to answer my question, BUT I was looking for an easier solution.


Below is the Oregon response, and my original email to them.
If any A/S members feel I am "in left field", please do not hesitate to straighten me out. Sending a bar weight chart would also
help.

bob

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for contacting Technical Services at Oregon Cutting Systems!



I have checked with our Test Engineer in regards to your question and was told that the best way would be to weight the saws separately, first with the 3/8” pitch and then with the .325” pitch using the same bar length and chain count for each pitch.



There is information through the Power Equipment Trade Magazine that gives the weights of chain saws.



Best regards,



xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

4909 S.E. International Way

P.O. Box 22127

Portland, OR 97269-2127

Phone (503) 653-4706

Fax (503) 653-4440

mailto:[email protected]





-----Original Message-----
From: Bob
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2004 6:17 AM
To: Technical Services and Sales
Subject: Oregon Chainsaw Bar weights



I can find a lot of chainsaw bar info, but no weights.

We would like to compare your 3/8 x .50 product line, with the .325 x .50 . line.



Is there a chart/s I could download via the internet ?



We are now reconizing the value of the Oregon bars & chains, and starting to move to Oregon.

I am thinking that we could move to 20" .325 bars and reduce weight enough to be worth while ; given the .325 is a smaller cutter. .



bob

 

[glens]

Speaking of illogical, try following the reverse-quoted, reply-at-top method of email (looks like the headers would indicate the guy was using LookOut!).

Since the bar thickness is the same (for the same gauge chain), and with the nose sprocket being the major difference (and the stamped information near the mount), the weight difference is probably negligible and may even favor the 3/8 unless the profiles are different (but I doubt <a href="http://www.oregonchain.com/pdf/bars/BarNoses_FB0601.pdf" target="_blank">they</a> are).

The .325 chains may make a slightly narrower kerf, but there are more cutters/drivers/sideplates, so I highly doubt they are any lighter, and may be heavier than the 3/8 chains.

Let us know what you find out.

Glen

 

[Newfie]

Meaningless triviality. Put the saw in the wood.

Glens, your needle is getting stuck in so many things now, we are gonna have to release a double LP.

 

[glens]

Maybe the tonearm bearing is fubar, or the leads have a kink in them, or the anti-skating mechanism has a hitch (or the changer mechanism is dirty), but I've got a whole roll of quarters sitting on it now.&nbsp; It's only supposed to be 1&frac12; grams downforce; something's got to give!

 

[xander9727]

If a few grams of weight is an issue, perhaps you should consider a smaller saw........Or you could beef up the old biceps to the point a few grams wouldn't make a difference.

Maybe operating a chainsaw at this point in you life isn't the best choice.

Ya know, macrame needles don't weigh too much.

You could always order firewood or higher an arborist to do your tree work.

I just got done reading some of Rocky's post and couldn't help being sarcastic.

In all seriousness, why do you care which is heavier?

 

[Crofter]

Originally posted by Mike Maas
. Another factor is the gauge of the chain, an 050 bar is a lot lighter than an 063 bar (and cuts faster too). .

Mike how did you arrive at this? Usually the narrower guage bars have a smaller groove cut in them for the chains drive tangs. If you remove less metal from the blank wont that leave the narrower guage bar heavier. Almost insignifigantly so but in the opposite direction to your "a lot lighter"

 

[Crofter]

Just quibbling Mike! I thought the laminated bars were homeowner stuff. Does the light alloy center on the bars you mentioned extend back thru the tail of the bar or just the belly. I am curious to see whether they prove out or are just a trouble prone gimmick. If the bar is lighter, wont you have to just press that much harder on the saw? lol!

 

[xander9727]

Lightweight alloy centers, .013 more or less metal, number of drivelinks?

If you're not strong enough to safely run a chainsaw, making it lighter isn't the answer. If your competing in an event I could see where a pound or two could make a difference. If your a professional logger, arborist, hell even a firewooder you should do enough physical labor to develop the muscle necessary to run a chainsaw. Saws come in different sizes to fit the different tasks one must perform. You don't want to climb with an 088 or 3120. You don't want to buck with a 200t. If you aren't physically able to perform the job because of the weight of the saw you should choose to 1) find a different job 2) join a gym until you can do the job.

 

[xander9727]

This guy should not run a chainsaw.

 

[xander9727]

This is a qualified operator.

 

[Crofter]

Xander, no slight to your poster boys, but put a little bit of weight on what is between the ears in judging. Lol! I sure wouldn't give up much strength to save an ounce of weight. I don't care for laminated. Three layers the same thickness are nowhere as stiff as one solid one.

 

[jokers]

Originally posted by Mike Maas
And tell me why stiffness is a good quality.

Mike, if you don`t know the answer to that question, you`re obviously spending too much time on the computer!

All kidding aside, a stiffer bar will provide less drag on the sides of the drive tangs than a bar that flexes and binds the chain. That being said, I agree with your logic Mike, that a laminated bar could be as stiff as a similar thickness solid. It all comes down to how the manufacturer builds it.

Maybe Glen can back me up, or set me straight, but memory suggests to me that the modulus of elasticity was an important factor in beam sizing, and that smaller members of a material could be laminated together to make a larger beam equivalent to a large solid beam if they all shared the same MOE, given that fastening of the smaller laminations to each other was adequate. This can be very easily accomplished in a process where the laminates are spot welded together as in bar building.

The problem lies in the way that the manufacturers seem to view laminated bars as homeowner or throwaways. I have no proof to substantiate my claim but the laminates seem to have rails that wear faster and the tips also seem to be more failure prone. I will take a solid over a laminate anyday and will pay both the weight and cost penalty without a thought.

Russ

 

[Crofter]

If laminated bars were totally bonded throughout their common surfaces with a method that gave the same shear strength as the sections, they woould indeed be as strong and resistant to flexing. This is the case with the laminated wood / glue panel which Mike uses to support his opinion.
Laminated bars are spot resistant welded together mostly at the bottom of the groove. On some, "very" spottily welded I might add. I have seen them separate almost completely. Some are seam resistant welded in the same area but the large central area of the bar has the separate sections free to slide past each other when any torsional or bending force is applied. They are not nearly as stiff as a solid bar. The laminated bar is pretty much good for cheap, not very much good for strong!

 

[Bobcat]

Xander9727:
I am a person that enjoys seeking info, comparating tech specs, etc. That is one of the great values of this forum. A/S = information exchange. A manufacturer should provide detailed specs for their products. Other wise, why even make different types, and sizes, and models ?

It should be obvious that vendors are now very much aware of the importance of product weight. Those old time saws and bars did a lot of wear & tear on our fathers & grandfathers.

bob

 

[jokers]

Mike,

I don`t recall ever bending a bar "to destruction" but have noticed that laminated bars never last anywhere near as long as solids.

I have noticed poor performance from laminated bars on a few occassions and found that they had been bent somewhere between manufacture and when I had taken possession, which caused binding. I`ve never had that problem with a solid. Could be coincidence I suppose.

Russ

 

[glens]

Originally posted by Mike Maas
Funny how stiff a laminated board is though.

Due in large part to the factors of having alternate laminations with grain running in differing directions and (essentially) glued over the entire surfaces.

How many bridges/viaducts/trestleworks do you still see which were built-up with riveted-together members?&nbsp; A fair amount, I'd guess.&nbsp; Laminated chainsaw bars to not seem to be built to quite the same quality standard as are solids, but I don't recall ever having a laminated bar fail more quickly than I'd thought it should, given reasonable care/use.&nbsp; I prefer the solid units, however.&nbsp; They're not that much heavier yet seem to generally be built better, as Russ suggests.

Russ, I've noted some sweeping bends in new solids made both overseas and domestically.&nbsp; Never anything a good stomping won't cure.&nbsp; I'm always afraid of busting spot welds when straightening laminated bars...

Glen

 

[xander9727]

Could someone with a scale weigh a solid and a laminate bar to tell what the difference is. I'm willing to be that it is negligible. It has been my experience that solid bars last longer. The sprocket end of the bar is replacable on a solid bar and permenant on a laminate bar. This would indicate that the manufacturer expects the bar to outlast the sprocket on the solid bar. Why do you think this is?

 

[bwalker]

Mike, Loggers bend bars left and right. The good thing about a solid bar is 8 times out of 10 you can straighten it with a rubber mallet and a little elbow grease. Sometimes you can also straighten laminate bars, but it takes much more effort and many times the spot welds pop. I have also noticed that the rails on laminate bars are of much softer steel. I believe Walt Galer said this had something to do with the spot welding causing annealing of the rail.

 

[Fish]

Now Walt could really shovel the poop, far better than you guys.

I miss him.

 

[joelamb]

I doubt the rails on the laminated bars were hardened in the first place. The spot welds wouldn't heat the rails enough or evenly enough to anneal the rails. Some Oregon bars are baked for an even hardness, but that's why the rails don't last. The rails need to be hardened more than the rest of the bar. If a long bar has to much flex it will pop your chain off when cutting a limb, so you don't want to much flex, or too thin of a bar with lenght. If I remember right, didn't Walt Galer build a fast chain, or was that a chain fast. LOL