Saw modifications vs. Stock saws.

[weimedog]

I'm going to kick a bee's nest here I think... but its a conversation that needs to be had from time to time. And that is why modify a perfectly good new stock saw? Reason this is on my mind is this winter I've had that conversation a lot with guys who pass through my farm. Mostly with guys who have their own logging outfits or farmer types who like myself have to do a lot of cutting.

First... I have to confess I like tweaking my saws. its a derivative of being in some form of motorsports for as long as I can remember. Can't do the dirt bike thing any more and since I do a lot of saw work, that modus operandi is now applied to my personal saws. Its fun, a hobby, and some social aspects for the GTG community I guess. From the results I get on the video channel there are quite a few who do the same thing for the same reasons. I get it. AND I will continually advance my state of the art because it's what I do. As I learn and add dimensions to the hobby, I will share that experience with those interested. STILL under the umbrella of a hobby that just happens to make the real work on the farm more enjoyable.

But back to the real world. Most of the true professional's I've crossed paths with this winter have a completely different set of priorities. They have folks they hire, provide tools to get work done, and those tools need to start, cut, and continue that cycle for as long as possible in all conditions imaginable. None of those folks I have talked to have any interest What so ever of taking those tools to a state outside of manufactures warrantee's number one, and to place where variables have been added that MIGHT make them less useable or fail in the extremes in weather or other conditions. They may just have to run dirty...or in the snow in extreme cold....and things we wouldn't normally require of a hobby saw. To those folks "modded" saws are ridiculous. A clean filter, tight and sharp chain, and different weights of bar oil is as far as they will go. They will take what ever their dealer recommends to stay within warrantee boundary's and go with it. Because if a saw fails, the warrantee is part of the cost structure.

And then there are the small operators. They do like a more snappy saw both from a production perspective and because they at some point have enjoyed their craft and are interested in the equipment they use. Similar to the "personal" saw for the bigger operators.

So the question is....how relevant are modded saws? Out side of this little cyber bubble called arboristsite? Of the pro's out there, how much of the production work gets done with these one off monsters we have created? How many are simply trophies or bling for GTG's

For me, when I really have to work, I can tell you I'm less and less interested in large displacement loud saws with too much compression to start easily. The saws I use are getting smaller and lighter. And the ones I pick up for a long day are the ones easiest to use and easiest on my back... But I do like taking older or underdog saws to a higher performance level for chits and grins. AND they do get wrapped into the work cycle as well... but that's my hobby. Not something that makes sense in the real world.

Just curious on your collective thoughts.

 

[Tree Sling'r]

I repair many saws as well as build them. I recommend crews, who use company equipment to keep everything stock, with the exception of a muffler mod. Many employees could care less about taking care of stuff, the more basic the better.
On the other hand, I build for many self-employed fallers, arborists, etc. They maintain daily up keep and want every extra ounce of power as possible.
Myself, I have no use for a stock saw.

 

[old-cat]

I think the most common attitude everywhere is, If it ain't broke, don't fix it!
Those people will NEVER experience the pleasure of high performance engines.

 

[Chris-PA]

I'm with you in that I mod the saws because I enjoy it. I think that some of them have come out quite well and perform considerably better than stock. However, when I'm gathering my firewood the time spent running a saw is a minor percentage of the job, so it would be hard to say it's really important to the job.

For a pro, the purpose of the saw is to extract the energy in the fuel, turn it into mechanical energy and cut wood to sell. While running a modified saw may be more enjoyable, in the big picture a stock saw can do that job just fine and I doubt the realized productivity gains would be worth the extra cost and risk. If I were running a business I would stick to stock saws.

 

[sawfun]

I would guess that in general, company saws
that may have several users should remain stock. Personal saws that belong to contract fallers may be an exception. Those guys get paid by how much wood they put on the ground in a given time, speed & power pay back more than the cost of the porting and possibly replacing a saw more often.

 

[cuttinties]

Here's how I look at it. It's going to last 6 months full time (very conservative number) in the woods for one reason or another. (Run over, mechanical failure, smashed by a log ect.) One guy may see no reason to invest in what's already destined for failure, another may want to squeeze every penny of production out of it they can. So let's say that the average loggers work 5 days a week for 6 months that's 120 working days for that paticular saw. Now let's say that after shipping and port work cost they ended up spending $300. That added production costs that logger $2.50 per day. If his production increases 20% (just overall production) on a $3,000 average day he made an extra $597.50 per day that saw exists after his cost of $2.50 per day. With one week of ported saw production the port work and saw have paid for themselves. Now the next 23 weeks that saw is alive an extra $13,742.50 have been made. That's a 460% return on his initial $300 investment. But it's not for everyone some folks just don't like any extra costs because they don't do the math to see the return. Some crews don't keeps saws alive long enough to see a return. And others quite simply don't care.

 

[weimedog]

It didn't take long for the folks to form trends.... so just to spur the discussion, from an old marketing type this is how MOST of the subsequent posts will line up.

If your a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Builders will need to rationalize their value add.
Engineers will need to quantify what that means ... (sorry PA....I used 2 b an engineer too.. once upon a time, a long long time ago in a place far away)
Company man dealers will need to point out the risks...
And hobbyists also need to explain to their wives why the money spent makes sense...and those argument are developed here.
Then there are the company owners...and firewood / home owner types. They will either be swayed by one set of data presented or another....and now I'm just curious if there is real data out there to support one vs. the other. I'm actually looking forward to new info...to support my habit.

 

[weimedog]

Here's how I look at it. It's going to last 6 months full time (very conservative number) in the woods for one reason or another. (Run over, mechanical failure, smashed by a log ect.) One guy may see no reason to invest in what's already destined for failure, another may want to squeeze every penny of production out of it they can. So let's say that the average loggers work 5 days a week for 6 months that's 120 working days for that paticular saw. Now let's say that after shipping and port work cost they ended up spending $300. That added production costs that logger $2.50 per day. If his production increases 20% (just overall production) on a $3,000 average day he made an extra $597.50 per day that saw exists after his cost of $2.50 per day. With one week of ported saw production the port work and saw have paid for themselves. Now the next 23 weeks that saw is alive an extra $13,742.50 have been made. That's a 460% return on his initial $300 investment. But it's not for everyone some folks just don't like any extra costs because they don't do the math to see the return. Some crews don't keeps saws alive long enough to see a return. And others quite simply don't care.

Good stuff...if you buy into the premise the production goes up20 percent. I don't. So help me understand how the 20 percent on a day is real...I'd like to believe that. Partly when you look at the entire system, cutting would have to be the bottle neck that if changed ups the production. I am watching a job right now where they can't get the wood onto a truck! The cutting is a very small percentage of THAT particular job. And when the cutting goes to a higher percentage, around here they go mechanical. So have to look at a larger picture. And be able to understand the percentage of time & cost on a job the cutting actually is. For a guywho hires out as a feller.....all he does is walk and cut. Depending on how far the trees are spaced, or how deep the snow is; the walk/carry time may interfere with that premise as well.

BUT a light faster saw has to have a positive impact if the cutting time is high relative to the over all job or business. Assuming it doesn't fail. Now risk analysis comes into play be cause a broken saw for any reason is lost opportunity. And the cost to repair is additional resource.

 

[cuttinties]

It didn't take long for the folks to form trends.... so just to spur the discussion, from an old marketing type this is how MOST of the subsequent posts will line up.

If your a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Builders will need to rationalize their value add.
Engineers will need to quantify what that means ... (sorry PA....I used 2 b an engineer too.. once upon a time, a long long time ago in a place far away)
Company man dealers will need to point out the risks...
And hobbyists also need to explain to their wives why the money spent makes sense...and those argument are developed here.
Then there are the company owners...and firewood / home owner types. They will either be swayed by one set of data presented or another....and now I'm just curious if there is real data out there to support one vs. the other. I'm actually looking forward to new info...to support my habit.

Stock saws are less likely to get you hurt. Stock saws aren't as loud.
Stock saws have warranty

 

[cuttinties]

Good stuff...if you buy into the premise the production goes up20 percent. I don't. So help me understand how the 20 percent on a day is real...I'd like to believe that.

Ok let's say that you port a saw and get 40% gains out of it. The 40% won't show up in full as you still have to sharpen chain, skid, buck and load the logs. So for every 5 logs you cut you have 1 extra. For every 25 logs you've got 5 more you wouldn't have with a stock saw. Instead of 50 you've got 60, instead of 100 you've got 120. Making sense yet?

 

[pioneerguy600]

Personal preference and nothing else matters!!

 

[weimedog]

Ok let's say that you port a saw and get 40% gains out of it. The 40% won't show up in full as you still have to sharpen chain, skid, buck and load the logs. So for every 5 logs you cut you have 1 extra. For every 25 logs you've got 5 more you wouldn't have with a stock saw. Instead of 50 you've got 60, instead of 100 you've got 120. Making sense yet?

I get it completely. Love the line of thought, just want to flush it out a little. It's the rational behind every saw advancement over the last 100 years...until the EPA changed the metric. It's why the Husqvarna 372 and Stihl 440 exist. And the builders extract a little more at a cost... and then new generation saws try and push that return on investment yet again. The question is does it make sense to put your business in the hands of performance shops vs. manufacturing outfit. Wonder if a large company has ever done statistical analysis... AND of course since each shop is an individual, there are statistical differences there as well. Maybe a conservative build that gets 70 percent of a theoretic 100 based on the current state of the art at 50 percent less cost vs. a full on build that approaches race saw power and because of physic's reliability. It wouldn't surprise me if the large manufacturers have done a little analysis on this topic....where is that enthusiastic Stihl dealer from Virginia who used to post here a few years back go??

Time for me to sit back and learn from the collective experience...check in later..

 

[the GOAT]

Ported ms362's are awesome!!! But I'd take a stock 044 or solo 665 over one any day.

 

[old-cat]

Ported ms362's are awesome!!! But I'd take a stock 044 or solo 665 over one any day.

Easier to pull start??? That's the ONLY negative about my ported saws. I'm such a weakling!

 

[CapitaineHaddoc]

I'm a pro, and I use ported saws all day long. I don't care about the warranty because I can fix my saws by myself, but now it's hard to use a stock saw.

I can use a lighter ported saw to do the same job as a big stock saw, and at the end of the day i'm less tired. And when i'll be old, my back will be in better shape.

 

[Chris-PA]

if you buy into the premise the production goes up20 percent. I don't. So help me understand how the 20 percent on a day is real...I'd like to believe that. Partly when you look at the entire system, cutting would have to be the bottle neck that if changed ups the production.

This is where I come out too - I'm quite skeptical that the NET productivity improvement is significant. If I were running a business I'd be looking at it with a whole-system approach, and then things like fuel cost and operator health would be important. One could at least quantify the kind of reduction in fuel use one gets from running strato engined saws, but it would be quite difficult to do something similar with ported saws. Mastermind is probably closest right now to a regular production porting process, but it is still very much made-by-hand work and it would be tough to get quantifiable data on the improvement in cutting speed, the fuel use and the consistency - you would have to make the decision on gut feel.

Last, these saws are UL listed - in stock form. You are a business owner, something unfortunate happens, and it is found that the saws you were using were modified....

 

[Nitroman]

When I bought my 394 off eBay back in 2007, I thought it was the ****. Then I ordered the 288 deflector, measured the port, cut the holes, and SHAZAM! I spent maybe $15 plus my small amount of time for a big gain. After that, I had to have a pro-modded saw. I don't think I could own a stock saw, they are fun yes, but just....plain.

 

[traktorz]

How come that the manufacturers don't do factory porting of their saw engines, when such a boost in performance (power/weight ratio increase) actually is possible. One downside is of course a louder saw, after a muffler mod.

 

[blsnelling]

I'd rather use a ported 50cc saw than most stock 70cc saws. Running a ported saw is so much less work than a stock saw. Plus you get done much faster.

 

[weedkilla]

The only time you will see modified saws being used professionally is when the person paying the bills is doing the cutting.
It's really hard to put a ported saw in someone else's hands, even good employees can do things that make you want to scream.