Tutorial: make your own raker depth gauge supported by software tool

[hannes69]

So the .020" cutter wear reading is taken from the full raker height due to a presetting of .025" depth = 6.3° cutting angle that's set by you.
What do you exactly mean " if the chain were to have a higher raker?
[...] You didn't use the presenting an all of them did you?

Ok, I try to use other words to explain:
Let´s first assume case A (which doesn´t reflect reality!): You buy a 3/8 Stihl RM chain, which has NO raker depth. So initially with a brand new chain the raker has the same height as the cutter. Then you can´t start off cutting with this chain, you have to define first your raker depth. So you can now manually file down the raker to a depth of 25 mil without using a gauge tool or whatever. This means you have now a chain as you can buy it. A brand new chain with a raker depth of 25 mil. Out of the cutters´s geometry this corresponds directly to a cutting angle of 6.3° with this Stihl chain.
Now case B: you buy another time the already mentioned chain with NO raker depth. This time you don´t file the raker down manually to a depth of 25 mil, instead you use one of my raker depth gauges. What happens? Using gauge type 1 for the example of page 5, you get the same number of a raker depth of 25 mil. Because the gauge´s design variables (thickness and pivot length) were set by me in such a way, that the gauge tool starts with 25 mil at the 0 mil wearing point = new chain
Type 2 is a different case: In this example with the 'initially NO raker depth' chain, my gauge type 2 would achieve a raker depth of 23.8 mil corresponding to a cutting angle of 6.0°.
Now we change to reality: You can´t buy a chain with NO raker depth. The mentioned Stihl chain has ALREADY a raker depth of 25 mil and a cutting angle of 6.3° when you buy it.
So back to the examples of page 5, in each case the values for the first three cutting angles you achieve in reality vs. what you would achieve when having a chain with NO raker depth:

Stihl with type 1: 6.3, 6.5, 6,6 / 6.3, 6.5, 6.6
Stihl with type 2: 6.3, 6,4, 6,6 / 6.0, 6.4, 6.6
Carlton with type 1: 7.1, 7.0, 7.0 / 6.9, 7.0, 7.0
Carlton with type 2: 7.1, 6.0, 6.3 / 5.5, 6.0, 6.3

The 7.1 is not even close to flowing with the rest.
The 7.1 flows nice with the other gauge thought. Why would this be?
Your gauge is lower at the base but has less cutting angle except at the end. How is this possible.

I hope this question is now answered with the numbers given directly above
For type 1 the 7.1° is flowing with the rest, because I did set the gauge´s design parameters in such a way.
As I already mentioned: This is not that easy with type 2 when assuming given steel material thicknesses. In these examples on page 5 I took common steel thicknesses of 39 mil and 47 mil (commonly available in Germany). So in this example my type 2 seems not to perform as perfect as it could.
But: I can do the same thing here of course, as I have shown for the Stihl chain above on page 11, I aim for a gauge tool design parameter value as perfect as possible but now have the little problem of having to use a not common material thickness.
For the Carlton lo pro chain this means now using a material thickness of 43 mil when aiming for the initial cutting angle of 7.1° and allowing a small overhead.
Then we have the following distribution of numbers:



Not bad I think
BTW: The Carlton chain I use is type N1C-BL, meaning 3/8 low profile, 0.050" driving link gauge, semi chisel, bumper style. The initial cutting angle is 7.1° according to my measurements, and Carlton recommends a sharpening angle of 35° for this chain, so Carlton is more on the 'aggressive' path

On page 9, you used the .025 default depth with the Oregon gauge.
So if I ignore the first two numbers,
By following the pattern flow, it says it starts at about 17- 18 thou approx (according to 1/3 of the cutting angle gone)
on Stihl RM.
I do know the husky gauge is light because I use that gauge on the softwood with that chain now and then and the factory .025 factory is lower/same as my gauge.

According to my numbers the start would be at 16.3 mil, so the first three numbers would be 4.1, 4.3, 4,5 degree instead of the 'real' 6.3, 4.8, 4.5 degree. The Husky gauge with hard setting used on Stihl does really mean HARD

Page 9, last example:
.325 softwood gauge on 3/8 stihl RM would be a good example of you not using a "preset default mode it would appear.

At least the first quarter delivers a little bit too high values of the cutting angles for my taste, but with the rest it would be a suitable 'really soft wood' setup.

--------------------------
Nice seeing you getting deeper into the numbers, you seem to land in the 'zeal zone'

 

[PogoInTheWoods]

Nice to see renewed activity and Philbert dropping back in for a cup of coffee, too.

After reading the new material (and understanding a bit more as I read), a thought just occurred to me regarding what seems to be the limiting factor in establishing better linearity with the Type 2 tool..., which if I'm not mistaken, is the material thickness relative to the pivot point. With lower seeming to be better for the additional length required to achieve smoother numbers, and a rivet being as low as can be achieved while still using a component of the chain itself as the reference point (which still obviously works quite well), I wonder if establishing a defined pivot point on the tool itself would be another way to approach the material thickness issue? If maybe for no other reason than to accommodate different material thicknesses? Acid and grinding have been mentioned as methods to achieve a more specific (calculation friendly?) material thickness. And while I realize the pivot point on the rivet itself changes slightly as the length between the cutter and raker increases, wouldn't a shallow notch filed into/across the tool at the point where it rides on the rivet offer some additional design flexibility relative to material thickness by providing a slightly lower yet reference point than the actual top of the rivet..., call it the virtual pivot point?

Yeah, I know..., another variable. But if some flexibility in choosing a material type can be achieved by simply filing a rivet-sized arch (albeit relatively shallow) at the pivot point which would correspond to an appropriate slot length for achieving a desired result, well, I could then see the redneck factor kickin' in and wives wondering what happened to their baking pans and cookie trays.....again. (I know mine would.) LOL

Just thinking out loud about how to possibly broaden the material selection and maybe push just a little further past the current pivot point restriction. Even thicker materials could be used if one were to also grind down the notch wide enough to accommodate a file at the raker location, but that deviates rather dramatically from the simplicity factor and well into the customization realm..., pretty much beyond the original scope of the idea, but still plausible.

Will try to get the Oregon LG numbers soon. Gonna need to be in the correct frame of mind for that little exercise.

In the meantime, where can I find another cookie sheet?

​

 

[Westboastfaller]

Hannes
No, I already know all that...I was just testing you joking with you.
Thank you. I edited much of my post to ensure you would understand
but you had already read and gathered. Thank you. I have been following more of the trends so I was ignoring the ones out of sinc.
I was stumped with the equality with the low pro examples. I remember now that you said you were bound by material and questioned the viability of thinner material. Its all about 'possibility but certain possibilities have limitations.
Its a give and take world. A thinner material of 43 thou may not be something you would file directly over. Anyway, point taken with the example and explanation/s. You had It right the first time with the thicker material.

 

[Philbert]

In the meantime, where can I find another cookie sheet?

Always buying used kitchen stuff at garage / estate sales, thrift shops, flea markets . . . .

https://www.arboristsite.com/community/threads/chainsaws-and-home-economics.220545/

Philbert​

 

[Westboastfaller]

Nice to see renewed activity and Philbert dropping back in for a cup of coffee, too.

After reading the new material (and understanding a bit more as I read), a thought just occurred to me regarding what seems to be the limiting factor in establishing better linearity with the Type 2 tool..., which if I'm not mistaken, is the material thickness relative to the pivot point. With lower seeming to be better for the additional length required to achieve smoother numbers, and a rivet being as low as can be achieved while still using a component of the chain itself as the reference point (which still obviously works quite well), I wonder if establishing a defined pivot point on the tool itself would be another way to approach the material thickness issue? If maybe for no other reason than to accommodate different material thicknesses? Acid and grinding have been mentioned as methods to achieve a more specific (calculation friendly?) material thickness. And while I realize the pivot point on the rivet itself changes slightly as the length between the cutter and raker increases, wouldn't a shallow notch filed into/across the tool at the point where it rides on the rivet offer some additional design flexibility relative to material thickness by providing a slightly lower yet reference point than the actual top of the rivet..., call it the virtual pivot point?

Yeah, I know..., another variable. But if some flexibility in choosing a material type can be achieved by simply filing a rivet-sized arch (albeit relatively shallow) at the pivot point which would correspond to an appropriate slot length for achieving a desired result, well, I could then see the redneck factor kickin' in and wives wondering what happened to their baking pans and cookie trays.....again. (I know mine would.) LOL

Just thinking out loud about how to possibly broaden the material selection and maybe push just a little further past the current pivot point restriction. Even thicker materials could be used if one were to also grind down the notch wide enough to accommodate a file at the raker location, but that deviates rather dramatically from the simplicity factor and well into the customization realm..., pretty much beyond the original scope of the idea, but still plausible.

Will try to get the Oregon LG numbers soon. Gonna need to be in the correct frame of mind for that little exercise.

In the meantime, where can I find another cookie sheet?

View attachment 651410​

lol ..always good for s laugh.

I thought about that earlier but figured they were quite thin but I looked back in the 0P and they are 1 mm & 1.2 mm. Yes you would have an option there with a bevelled end at the pivot and a thinning at the swing then you will still have the thickness in the middle. Its all about customising for gain. Of course this isn't needed in most applications, I don't believe.

He is going to need to bring relevant finding and measurement forward in an organized, sorted manner.
I liked your idea of starting another thread down the road once more things are ironed out.
I am going to quote your post from yesterday next.

 

[hannes69]

a thought just occurred to me regarding what seems to be the limiting factor in establishing better linearity with the Type 2 tool..., which if I'm not mistaken, is the material thickness relative to the pivot point. With lower seeming to be better for the additional length required to achieve smoother numbers, and a rivet being as low as can be achieved while still using a component of the chain itself as the reference point (which still obviously works quite well)

Type 2 is already a linear tool
Serious again:
Here´s a drawing showing why the rivet is more or less already the sweet spot. It shows the depth gauge tool (47 mil thickness) on the Stihl 3/8 RM chain, 5 wearing points at the same time (0/25/50/75/100 %). The lines represent the bottom line of the tool, the tool is now maintaining a CONSTANT cutting angle of 6.3°.



If these 5 lines would cross in one point, you would have a perfect pivot point, maintaining a constant cutting angle for the real tool. Obviously this is not the case So all we can do is to find the best pivot point. Now you see that the rivet is the best point in this case already. The 100% wearing line is the lowest of course, if you remove material from the tool in the rivet area to come down to this point, you have the perfect cutting angle for this point, but obviously all other values would then be too high.
The picture reveals another thing: Now you SEE why type 2 is better than type 1: Along the tie strap line there is a way larger variation compared to the pivot point region near the rivet used by type 2

I wonder if establishing a defined pivot point on the tool itself would be another way to approach the material thickness issue? If maybe for no other reason than to accommodate different material thicknesses? Acid and grinding have been mentioned as methods to achieve a more specific (calculation friendly?) material thickness.

Yeah, the point with the material thickness... Acid: I didn´t try it on my own, but a friend of mine being in metal business mentioned he has done things like that and it should work. You can put the tool into a glass with the acid and the tool then gets thinner as a whole. Grinding: Meditative work Circular movement of the tool onto sand paper or similar material. Then of course there is the possibility to grind down the material only on one side of the tool. My calculator doesn´t deal with this possibility at the moment. That is definitely a point to discuss further when optimizing gauge type 2.

And while I realize the pivot point on the rivet itself changes slightly as the length between the cutter and raker increases, wouldn't a shallow notch filed into/across the tool at the point where it rides on the rivet offer some additional design flexibility relative to material thickness by providing a slightly lower yet reference point than the actual top of the rivet..., call it the virtual pivot point?

The change of the pivot point on the rivet during the chain´s life is rather small to work with I think. The notch itself would be another possibility regarding the topic above to deal with given material thickness, yes.

Just thinking out loud about how to possibly broaden the material selection and maybe push just a little further past the current pivot point restriction.

Good thoughts One point at the moment is: I only have numbers for 3/8 chains. And I´ve found suitable pivot points for gauge type 2 for these chains, being two different rivets for 3/8 normal and 3/8 low profile. I´m not 100% sure if this is automatically the case for .325 and .404 chains then. We´ll see On the other side the gauge tool has to sit onto something, so there must be a pivot point on the chain. The top side of a tie strap is very obvious, the top side of the rivet was obvious for me too ( ), maybe with clever thinking there are more possibilities to make use of, don´t know....

Will try to get the Oregon LG numbers soon. Gonna need to be in the correct frame of mind for that little exercise.

Yes A stable hand, piece of mind, some meditation, maybe a beer or two This exercise is more difficult and time consuming than one may think intuitively, I know that hehe.

In the meantime, where can I find another cookie sheet?

Yeah, you never can own too many cookie sheets

--------------------------------------

Westboastfaller previously had some questions concerning some numbers, I made an interesting observation dealing with these:

.325 'Soft' Position -- 14.80mm
.325 'Hard' Position -- 19.00mm
Material Thickness -- .84mm

3/8 'Soft' Position -- 19.00mm
3/8 'Hard' Position -- 23.30mm
Material Thickness -- .84mm

.404 'Soft' Position -- 19.00mm
.404 'Hard' Position -- 22.00mm
Material Thickness -- .75mm

I gave the numbers for putting this gauges virtually onto the Stihl 3/8 RM chain. In the meantime I came across this: There should be some problems when using this tools with Stihl 3/8.
When looking at yor photos, the .325 and 3/8 tools have a simple rectangular slot. When the distance that I call 'pivot length' gets too long, the tool won´t sit onto the tie strap but instead onto the driving link! The .404 one has an additional smaller slot. This allows to fit the driving link into it. But: when the pivot length gets too long, this tool won´t sit onto the Stihl tie strap anymore, it will simply fall down
Measuring my Stihl chain quick and dirty this means: When the pivot length gets longer than 16mm the gauge tool starts to sit onto the top side of the driving link when the second slot of the gauge tool is missing. When the pivot length gets longer than 20mm the tool with the second slot falls down.
I hope I have explained that well enough, it´s not that that simple to find the right words...
What I want to say: The theoretical performance of the tool is one thing, it doesn´t help if you can´t use the tool actually
The problem here comes up due to the relative low material thickness. If the material is thin, the pivot length has to grow of course to get the desired results. With a thicker material the pivot length gets shorter and you come more into the 'safe' area in the middle of the tie strap.
The interesting point here is: There must definitely be a bigger difference between 3/8 Stihl and 3/8 Husky chain.
As the numbers already have shown, the Husky tool on the Stihl chain will lead to a very 'hard' setting. And the correct 3/8 tool (hard) doesn´t seem to fit onto the Stihl chain. You can use it, I have shown the 'bad' numbers, and these numbers are in reality even worse, because the tool sits onto the driving link and so the tool sits higher than calculated and the raker depth value gets lower.
So we already see, that the buyable tools aren´t universal...

This speaks another time for doing some chain measurements, the different manufacturers seem to make things more differently than I have thought...
So: gauge type 1 has the advantage to play with 'pivot length' in combination with the material thickness, but this has some limits of course.
BTW the material thickness of 0.75mm or 0.84mm is surprisingly low. Ok, you don´t put normally a lot of pressure onto this tool during filing, but a tool should withstand some impact like sitting on it, throwing it on the floor,... There must be some reason that they chose this one (apart from simply being cheaper than thicker material )
The secrets of raker depth tools or the philosophical dimension once again...

 

[hannes69]

Always buying used kitchen stuff at garage / estate sales, thrift shops, flea markets . . . .

https://www.arboristsite.com/community/threads/chainsaws-and-home-economics.220545/

The start post of this thread is really nice
Especially "a dining room table (for showing off newly purchased saws)"

 

[hannes69]

Hannes
No, I already know all that...I was just testing you joking with you.

I know that you already know ALL of that
While passing all of these tests with grade A, I´ll hopefully skip a class

 

[Westboastfaller]

I could give a thesis on the whole subject.

NO!!!!! LOL

Lmao
Could have turned out to be Feces.
Maybe when its almost all said and done then 'lets rock'.

Stihl 3/8 chain typically calls for a 13/64 file and may be what the 3/8 x 7/32 reference is getting at. .Not sure that has much bearing on calculations anyway aside from the shape of the cutter being slightly different between Stihl and say Oregon. They both get ground with the same sized wheel, so... Some Oregon LG specifications should shed light there.

A grinder and spec round files are apple's & oranges. The stone just cuts the cutter edge and has plenty of clearance but a spec file doesn't even have the room at the end

As far as Oregon specs shedding more light:
We will certainly know exactly why. What is obvious though, is that there is differences between Stihl RM and Oregon LG chain cutter height to the chassis. Bigger file means more clearance in this case but we have to look at it all with both chain specs needed here as well both factory raker plate measurements.
It has been established that Carlton gauge is the most aggressive gauge.
so that would tell me its shorter from base to raker slot, possibly a bit thinner? Is it as aggressive on Carlton 3/8 × 7/32 or is it allowed to sit higher?...IDK, I'm thinking the base is higher?

With the taller cutter, that I am saying the OregonLG will have over the Stihl RM; This will put the gauge on a steeper angle. We should already know that shortening the base does the same thing. Common sense right? We have also learned from the software that lowering the base slightly, that there is gains to be had with out disrupting the cutting angle and benefit a more desired cutting angle as the teeth wear. (At least in these examples with his gauge thus far) This is 'all' about the increased angle of the raker gauge that is slightly increased from 'stock' examples..or at least its the key to explaining and understand.

Look at the number trends with the stihl gauge and his gauge. His gauge has a latter onslaught of peak numbers with the stihl RM chain/ (11.8 ° cutter tooth back slope.)
His hits the pinical pivot between .100" - .140"cutter wear (an 1/8" =.125" ) When the stihl gauge lays at the exact same angle, it reaches the pivot at .O40" cutter wear. Although it starts out flatter it still needs to drop a bit more to peak.

What we see with the low pro stihl / 7° cutter tooth back slope is that the stihl gauge lays down below 'the angle' therefore started at 7.1 cutter angle and declined. Moreover: Hannes's gauge was obviously above the pinical pivot angle as his numbers climbed then dropped. (As they have always done).

'Pinical pivot'
The gauge angle before the cutter angle decline where the raker depth ratio (material removed) is greatest, thus increasing the cutting angle.

^^Could use a better name ? as the software shows its more a small window in relation to cutter wear and gauge angle.

Above are conclusions from my observations.

My theory with the Oregon Lg is that the higher cutter makes a steeper angle so therefore the husky gauge is longer from raker slot to its base in order to get the right balance.
When I use the gauge on a new Oregon chain with .030, likely its .005" that comes of. Not the case with Stihl RM. I'm obviously running a higher raker. The graff shows the softwood setting is .025 on Stihl RM
I've heard it said on here as well, I've thought the same, and that is, its like a can get Oregon chain sharper? Its just the depth difference that's fooling me.
A faller I worked with said its a trick to use a husky 404 soft setting on 3/8 Oregon chain??
Its the other way around. .325 soft setting on 3/8. His saws were hungry. According to the measurements, Husqvarna 404 and 3/8 soft setting are the same and because the 404 is thinner then he was right as well.

You can only beat a dead horse so much before your uneven cutters will miraculously begin cutting in a straight line with appropriately maintained rakers...., sober or not! (Congrats on that, btw. Been there. Done that.)

Sober!
Thank you very much. Right back at ya.
I hope my internet time hasn't ran out?

 

[hannes69]

Here some more drawings for illustration the given task.
Same approach like in post #226. You see again the gauge tool sitting on the Stihl 3/8 RM chain, now only for 3 different wearing points simultaneously (0/50/100 %). Less lines, better too see some things, less work for me

1. constant cutting angle 6.3°, gauge tool thickness 1.2mm (47 mil)
2. constant cutting angle 6.3°, gauge tool thickness 1.0mm (39 mil)
3. constant cutting angle 8.0°, gauge tool thickness 1.2mm (47 mil)
4. constant cutting angle 8.0°, gauge tool thickness 1.0mm (39 mil)






So you see 2 hard and 2 soft setups with differing gauge tool material thickness.
I have marked the 'best' potential pivot point (if we could choose it freely) when aiming for an even distribution of the error.
I think such drawings can help a bit for imagination some things, the numbering tables show some other aspects, but they are clearly worse for imagination.
There are some interesting things to detect:
E.g. drawing #4: Remember the numbers for type 2 gauge 1.0mm (39 mil) thickness on Stihl 3/8? Now you see what´s going on. The 2 lines of the 0% and 50% wearing points cross more or less exactly onto the rivet. So perfect behaviour for the first half of the chain´s life. But you clearly see, that when considering the 100% wearing point as well, the ideal pivot point drifts to the left and downwards when spreading the error. But in this place is nothing to hold the gauge tool of course
And we see once again the coincidence between given material thickness and rivet location. It is pure luck that the ideal pivot point for 6.3° hard cutting angle sits on the rivet when using 47 mil material. And it is pure luck that for a 8.0° soft cutting angle the ideal pivot point for the first half of the chain´s life sits on the rivet as well for 39 mil material.
I don´t know if we have the same sort of luck with e.g. Oregon chain or .325 or .404 pitch. Maybe

I think these drawings should also help to answer some of Westboastfallers questions or connect to his theories

 

[Philbert]

Have you guys taken into account the curvature of the bar (where the angle is measured, and the various positions where different cutters cut) when making these caclulations?

Philbert

 

[Westboastfaller]

There should be some problems when using this tools with Stihl 3/8.
When looking at your photo's, the .325 and 3/8 tools have a simple rectangular slot. When the distance that I call 'pivot length' gets too long, the tool won´t sit onto the tie strap but instead onto the driving link!

Great drafts. It makes it easy for people to see what is going on.

With the Stihl RM chain, the Oregon/ Husqvarna soft setting gives you the same as the hard setting as your numbers show. Now this was only for modifying the gauge or starting from scratch. I suggested if you take the measurements from the highest point of the chassis then shorten it until optional numbers could be achieved. I believe that's what you did. I also suggested that the tabs would get in the way and they were not needed. I do use the tie strap as the very first time I tried to saddle it over both tie straps on full house Oregon chain and much to my surprise it wouldn't quite fit??? So a pryed it on with my bar wrench after a few attempts and filed the raker. It was even hard to pull off so I figured there was no way I was going to do that every tooth so I flipped the one side on the tie strap and that's the way I have always done it. Yes so its from a lower point but because its much longer this way then its going to be a bit higher = little less than .025 on Stihl RM with husky soft setting. Your are right.
If I want a bit more depth then I drop it off the strap on the side I'm filing from. This is always the inside to the outside for me on chisel chain.
It will sit a bit cockeyed though.
So I'm aware of all your concerns.

* It looked like in Pogo's pic's that he has it straddled so it kind of has me puzzled?? It 'looks like' but I can only see It clearing one strap in the picture. If it doesn't straddle then there will be a gap on what should be the base. ,(as you know) The closed end of the rectangle. On my gauges you would have to grind it wider just slightly. If in fact it is designed to sit on the closed end of the triangle over both straps (as it would appear) and not on one tie strap then this would affect my cutting angle on the second half of the chains life mostly and more so than it would if the inner base touched.
I have been thinking about this for a week, that it's very plausible, giving me too high of a cutting angle spread between shorter and longer teeth?
We will get to see what is going on soon.

Anyway, you were asking how to get a lower base for better numbers yet.
We came up with using the highest point of the chassis and shortening the 'pivot distance' (base to inside raker) we used a .325 virtual husky gauge on 3/8 Stihl RM to mod for softwood settings.

Now your concerns,
As I said before, you can just cut the base square at your pivot distance as you do not need it for THIS mod. Its just a resting point.
Could you have it for this mod?
Yes. You could just slightly widen the lower tabs that extend past the base.
In my experience they need it.
I could just only have one tab as I always file to the outside with chisel with the lean of the raker but I hold it from the bottom on one direction so they would serve a purpose for my awkward style. Now I have another option of lifting it on the tie strap that's a bit higher raker. I could use it near the beginning of the chain if I wanted.

Next
Your inside raker is your first rivet centre.
Shortly after the third rivet from centre the tie strap starts to round and you can not maintain the same height in reality? Got ya! It has to be measured from the straps if it falls in the middle. If it rests on the curve closest to the raker and needs lifting then one could use a lick of JB weld?Its easy to sand a bit until its on the sweet spot. It can also rest on the opposite curve at the top. It will maintain the correct height if that so happens to be where it would fall.

With the virtual dual gauge for softwood we did with the .325" Husky gauge mod on Stihl RM 3/8 chain then this looks to be the case.
17.5 mm approx is third centre rivet.
You worked out that it needed .50" 1.25 mm cut from the .325 hard setting of 19mm =17.75
So that sides good but in order to get the high back numbers we used the 3.25 soft setting at 14mm (p 9)
Centre rivet is about 17.5 and you say approx 16mm is the least you can go at this height because we have a drop floor then the 14 mm standard is not long enough. You would have to put a bottom crease then grind to find your angle or tape the slot on one side and epoxy between the tabs to extend it slightly. Epoxy may be your friend in this case, as well for maintaining optimal position.

So 3 rivets to centre on .375 = 3/8 ×2 6/8 = 3/4 = .750"
Round up 39 thou to 40 thou =1mm
2.5mm = .100"
7 x 2.5 = 17.5mm ? Close enough for what I do...nothing.. Lol

Teacher always said, "show your work^^^.lol
/QUOTE]

 

[Westboastfaller]

Always buying used kitchen stuff at garage / estate sales, thrift shops, flea markets . . . .

https://www.arboristsite.com/community/threads/chainsaws-and-home-economics.220545/

Philbert​

Very funny. You have a good sense of humor. They also say there is always an element of truth to a joke^^ I suppose in this case it's just our human condition that's so funny.
Did you know Jerry Seinfeld is the wealthiest film/television star by far (non production owner) with a net worth of about $800,000,000 (stats from 4 yrs back)
All made from his observations on the human condition.

Second was a movie star from Bolywood at $600,000,000

 

[Modifiedmark]

Thanks for the compliment


Yes, if you were taught the 'total manual' method, this certainly will work out very well, if practised enough.
I´m more the type of 'new school' I haven´t learned hand filing a chain, and maybe I won´t ever learn it. I go to the forest with two chains sharpened by me with an electrical grinder and rakers filed down with my depth gauge tool. Chain one has its work done until lunch break, chain two does its job till the end of the working day When cutting into a stone, one chain has to do the work for the rest of the day, when cutting into another stone - home sweet home So no need for hand filing for me, and if there´s no need then maybe there´s not a huge interest in learning it... And I like a sort of perfection very much. The grinder can surely hold a certain sharpening angle better than me. I also like some purist approaches in other fields, but in the matter of saw chains I prefer the little helpers.


Of course different gauges will still be needed for different wood types, these progressive gauges are not adjustable.
Within one setup it´s surely a question of personal thinking of accuracy. There are people out there absolutely satisfied with a 25 mil constant depth gauge, using it for hard and soft wood. Others have this constant depth gauge with more than one setting and use 25 mil for hard wood and 30 or 35 mil for soft wood. Others have the Husky/Stihl/FOP progressive ones and can work with the given soft and hard settings. And others want something better than this and have met in this thread So the next options are personalized type 1 or type 2 gauges, probably as dual setup. Gauge 2 at least is so linear that I personally don´t think about using the dual setup in the sense of one setting for the first and one setting for the second half of the chain but rather the already known hard and soft setting actually used for hard and soft wood. Type 1 is weaker at the second half of chain´s life, so there maybe is some potential in using two settings for the two halves.
A matter of taste once more.


Though understandable in this situation, that´s something to avoid, unless using a 'chinese fire cracker' (so we call them in Germany) instead of a 'real' chainsaw

You got mad when folks didn't just buy into your computer aided mumbo jumbo but then come and say you don't/can't file a chain by hand? Seriously?

You cut wood all day with just two chains and never touch them up so your cutting half your time with less then sharp chains and your preaching on rakers?

Experienced cutters can go to the woods with one chain, a round file with a handle and a flat file and will cut circles around your machine sharpened chains.
Far as I'm concerned any credibility you might have had is gone.

 

[hannes69]

You got mad when folks didn't just buy into your computer aided mumbo jumbo but then come and say you don't/can't file a chain by hand? Seriously?

You chime into this thread. I don´t have the whole overview but I´m thinking this is your first post in this thread here. You personally don´t deliver something useful regarding the thread´s topic but you´re obviously thinking that you´re in a good position to critisize anything? Seriously? It´s up to you to critisize something concerning the topic here, so maybe when I make false assumptions, neglect something and so on, but what the heck is your goal by simply critisizing my person? Computer aided mumbo jumbo means translated for your person seemingly: You personally don´t like computers, you maybe don´t have the brain for thinking about it and don´t understand many aspects we´re talking here about. Once again the discussion earlier craftmen vs. theorist. You´re obviously on the practical side and don´t like theory. No problem, but what do you want in this thread here then? Making trouble. When feeling bored find another hobby.
It is absolutely not necessary being able to hand file a chain. If you go to the woods with enough chains. Two are enough for me, maybe not for anybody. It is advisable that you can hand file a chain of course.
Nice thinking, making a chain grinder feel like he is 'cheating'. Only hand filing is the one and only true method. I´m 100% sure that many hand filed chains have way less performance than a machine grinded chain. Of course with much experience a hand filed chain CAN outperform a machine grinded one, but for a beginner in hand filing I would bet on the machine grinded one...
And: being able to hand file a chain has no direct relation to being able to make a suitable raker depth gauge. It even isn´t necessary to have experience with a chainsaw. We´re talking here about 'how to achieve a suitable rather constant cutting angle'. Theory and discussion how to realize this theory practically.

You cut wood all day with just two chains and never touch them up so your cutting half your time with less then sharp chains and your preaching on rakers?

I´m not preaching anything. I´m not a salesman, you don´t have to 'buy' my product. It´s not my goal to convince somebody of anything.
Yes, I cut wood all day with just two chains. I cut only pine, nothing else than pine, this wood is soft. When not touching sand, chains, dirt and so on, the two chains last the whole day FOR ME, yes. I don´t say this is the case for you or everyone else, it is the case for me. One chain is sharp enough after a few hours of work. The working speed in really soft wood is largely influenced by raker depth in my experience. It doesn´t make up a total dull chain of course, but in my experience a rather sharp chain + the right cutter depth are the right approach for my setup.

Far as I'm concerned any credibility you might have had is gone.

Your thinking, your attitude, your problem. You don´t have to trust in my methods. As your credibillity is gone, it´s the best approach for you to make yourself gone as well in this thread.


------------------------------
And once again remembering this: I don´t want to go this path in this thread. And feel assured that I simply make the difference. I want to keep up the general friendly attitude in this thread and am willing to work constructively on the given topic. Like I already said, the saying in Germany is 'like you´re shouting into the wood, it comes back this way to you'. Or another one says 'you want to sh*t onto my head? I can do the same thing as well...'.
-------------------------------
To all people out there thinking about the topic here 'mumbo jumbo': Fell free thinking this way, but PLEASE stay out of this thread then, it won´t help anybody to chime in to just say 'what a piece of crap are you making here'.
Thank you.

 

[Westboastfaller]

View attachment 651090

View attachment 651091

View attachment 651092
$7 on eBay, plus some aluminum angle.
https://www.arboristsite.com/commun...cator-feedback-on-marketability.295188/page-2

Philbert

thanks for the pics and attachments. I've never heard anything of DAF prior to this thread.
Noted that your post from the thread in the link said something to this affect..as follows:
IF a guy was real fussy about accuracy then you would make a channel for the chain and attach a back to keep it from going forward and back and keep everything true
like Bob L did in his thread opposed to trying to do it on the bar itself (referencing the curvature of the bar).
-------------------------------------------------

I believe you said these pictures in these examples of the saw on the bar doing the rakers, were posted by someone else, somewhere else.
I will also note you posted this I believe to suggest an inexpensive tool for measurement.

Apart from the great example with data that Hannes gave on p 1 as to why the saddle gauge is not good when the chain wears. The other problem I will mention as its not been mentioned here and that is if it were to rest on two high cutters and you have a short one then you get a high raker. As well the reverse scenario would get you a low raker.

The DAF obvious will keep the cutting angle, as the saddle gauge won't but will only be as good as the teeth are even.
I would have to assume it could be time consuming and certainly a shop tool. One mans opinion. Great and inexpensive little tool though.

Have you guys taken into account the curvature of the bar (where the angle is measured, and the various positions where different cutters cut) when making these caclulations?

Philbert

It should be done on a horizontal flat as illustrated.

If its a large bar with a deep belly where we have the "up the hill, down the hill" effect, I would still consider that a horizontal flat. Just on the hump is where one may see a slight gap open up between the relevant sections. About 1.3" (four rivets) from back of cutter plate to tip of tie strap, which he is using. Five rivets and about 1.7" normally.
Take a 6" - 8" straight edge on a standard bar like the Husky bar in the pic. Mark at the distance of the back of cutter to tip of tie and mark one just past the fifth rivot. See where you can get your feeler gauges in. The whole straight edge should sit flat on most all of the main bar.


There is nothing that I would want to do about tapers or can do about curvatures such as rounding the tip. Obviously a guy wouldn't want to do his rakers in the curve but could act as a trick for a little bit more on a worn chain.

Compensations for species, angles, power, felling dogs, as well ones with greater size and differently designed, will need to be ironed out with the chain file in the field.

 

[Modifiedmark]

You chime into this thread. I don´t have the whole overview but I´m thinking this is your first post in this thread here. You personally don´t deliver something useful regarding the thread´s topic but you´re obviously thinking that you´re in a good position to critisize anything? Seriously? It´s up to you to critisize something concerning the topic here, so maybe when I make false assumptions, neglect something and so on, but what the heck is your goal by simply critisizing my person? Computer aided mumbo jumbo means translated for your person seemingly: You personally don´t like computers, you maybe don´t have the brain for thinking about it and don´t understand many aspects we´re talking here about. Once again the discussion earlier craftmen vs. theorist. You´re obviously on the practical side and don´t like theory. No problem, but what do you want in this thread here then? Making trouble. When feeling bored find another hobby.
It is absolutely not necessary being able to hand file a chain. If you go to the woods with enough chains. Two are enough for me, maybe not for anybody. It is advisable that you can hand file a chain of course.
Nice thinking, making a chain grinder feel like he is 'cheating'. Only hand filing is the one and only true method. I´m 100% sure that many hand filed chains have way less performance than a machine grinded chain. Of course with much experience a hand filed chain CAN outperform a machine grinded one, but for a beginner in hand filing I would bet on the machine grinded one...
And: being able to hand file a chain has no direct relation to being able to make a suitable raker depth gauge. It even isn´t necessary to have experience with a chainsaw. We´re talking here about 'how to achieve a suitable rather constant cutting angle'. Theory and discussion how to realize this theory practically.


I´m not preaching anything. I´m not a salesman, you don´t have to 'buy' my product. It´s not my goal to convince somebody of anything.
Yes, I cut wood all day with just two chains. I cut only pine, nothing else than pine, this wood is soft. When not touching sand, chains, dirt and so on, the two chains last the whole day FOR ME, yes. I don´t say this is the case for you or everyone else, it is the case for me. One chain is sharp enough after a few hours of work. The working speed in really soft wood is largely influenced by raker depth in my experience. It doesn´t make up a total dull chain of course, but in my experience a rather sharp chain + the right cutter depth are the right approach for my setup.


Your thinking, your attitude, your problem. You don´t have to trust in my methods. As your credibillity is gone, it´s the best approach for you to make yourself gone as well in this thread.


------------------------------
And once again remembering this: I don´t want to go this path in this thread. And feel assured that I simply make the difference. I want to keep up the general friendly attitude in this thread and am willing to work constructively on the given topic. Like I already said, the saying in Germany is 'like you´re shouting into the wood, it comes back this way to you'. Or another one says 'you want to sh*t onto my head? I can do the same thing as well...'.
-------------------------------
To all people out there thinking about the topic here 'mumbo jumbo': Fell free thinking this way, but PLEASE stay out of this thread then, it won´t help anybody to chime in to just say 'what a piece of crap are you making here'.
Thank you.

I can chime in to a thread here anytime i want to address your mumbo jumbo and i was adding to your discussion. The more you talk the more your methods sound out of touch with the practical real world.

You should forget about rakers for a bit and actually learn how to sharpen a chain in the field. A sharp cutter is way more important then a slightly out of spec raker.

 

[Philbert]

. . . if it were to rest on two high cutters and you have a short one then you get a high raker. As well the reverse scenario would get you a low raker.
The DAF obvious will keep the cutting angle but will only be as good as the teeth are even.
I would have to assume it could be time consuming and certainly a shop tool. One mans opinion. Great and inexpensive little tool though.

Yeah, the digital tire gauge (assuming that it is accurate) is just a way to measure the height offset, not to tell anyone what to do. Could be set up with an offset base to measure this on individual teeth, ignoring adjacent teeth.

The fixed offset / saddle gauges are 'go/no-go'; these let you measure numbers a bit easier than using a straight edge and feeler gauges, as was mentioned in a earlier post. Also another way to collect 'before and after' data.

It should be done on a horizontal flat as illustrated. If its a large bar with a deep belly where we have the "up the hill, down the hill" effect, I would still consider that a horizontal flat. . . . Compensations for species, angles, power, felling dogs, as well ones with greater size and differently designed, will need to be ironed out with the chain file in the field.

Yeah (again). If measuring to tenths of a degree, the precision of the whole system is important. If just 'eyeballing' one part . . . .

The determination of what is 'level' (baseline, reference, whatever) is critical. Is it the centerline through the rivets or the outside edge? Are the rivets even uniform in diameter at that level of precision? Is it the bottom of the cutter / tie strap? Worn or new tie straps? These things can be controlled in a laboratory setting, or with a machinist's QA instruments. When referencing off the rivet of an adjacent tie strap, the curve of a bar could be important.

The definitions of 'precision', ' accuracy', and 'practical' come to mind. It is fine as a theoretical discussion / exploration, but must be considered in the larger context of 'sharpening'.

Philbert

 

[hannes69]

I can chime in to a thread here anytime i want to address your mumbo jumbo and i was adding to your discussion.

Surely you can chime in and say something. Freedom of speech as I already mentioned. You´re adding something to the discussion - only doubtful if it is very useful in the sense of the topic here.

You should forget about rakers for a bit and actually learn how to sharpen a chain in the field. A sharp cutter is way more important then a slightly out of spec raker.

You´re seeing some contradictions here where actually aren´t any. When e.g. talking about cutting speed, there are several influences. Your saw, horsepower, torque, fuel type, chain type, the chainsaw user, the sharpening, the raker,... This thread deals with ONE of them. Nobody says, that the mentioned aspect here is the only one or the most important one. There are many threads out there dealing with sharpening. This thread here is specialized regarding raker filing (and mainly deals with raker depth and not with other aspects like raker shape). When getting deep into one aspect of a story, this doesn´t mean it is the central point of the story.
I see absolutely no problem when you say 'sharpening is way more important than raker depth when thinking about cutting speed'.
Development for many things goes on and on. There was a time where raker depth gauges didn´t exist. So eyeballing, maybe counting file strokes. Then constant raker depth gauges. Kind of progress I´d say. Then the FOP and other progressive approaches from different manufacturers. Another progress. When having a close view you see some room for improvement of the given solutions. Or maybe someone simply likes to produce selfmade tools and make use of them. And so the story continues. That´s evolution.
We´re living in a world, where you don´t make permantly inventions like a car, a motor, a wheel, a plane, a rocket, a computer. Now we have smaller steps.
I don´t know exactly the problem with having coexistant solutions or opinions. It´s ok that you personally think that raker depth is a more or less neglectable aspect in cutting performance. But out of this personal subjective opinion there´s no need to make others believe that a better raker depth gauge is crap or whole of this thread is mumbo jumbo.
It´s interesting that many people like to make decisions for others. I SHOULD forget about rakers and learn hand filing instead? You SHOULD forget about sharpening and only concentrate on raker filing? Probably I SHOULD NOT waste my time with this sort of discussions

 

[HarleyT]

It is starting to get good now.....