Please don´t change quotes in a sense that fits more to your position! The quote is "[...] I know more about the 'cutting angle' and raker depth gauges than many others here.". It is formulated exactly like that by purpose. I know something about this topic, I consider that this is maybe more thany many here know, I assume that there is a certain amount of people here that knows equally or more than me about this topic. I´m not the master of raker filing, I only have specialized a little bit on it, nothing more.
My point in this thread here is definitely not: "I have developed a new raker depth gauge which outperforms all existing ones by miles". No.
My point is, like the thread´s title suggests already: "You can make your own raker depth gauge if you like to. A piece of software and this thread may help you with this process". In the starting post then several advantages of this approach are mentioned. During the thread here and there you´ll find some numbers, showing that one type has a better performance than the other type at some points. That aspect is not the real topic here.
Type 2 gauge has slightly better numbers, the huge advantage is that it is way easier to produce than type 1. And it has disadvantages, all mentioned in this thread already.
Maybe you personally see ONLY disadvantages in making your own gauge or in whole of my approach. That´s fine. But what´s your point then reading this thread or even writing in it? I don´t sign to bakery forums in order to read threads there and write in some of them: "I don´t understand all the hype here, I don´t like baking cakes, Walmart offers the best cakes ever, why bake your own?"
Noone ever assumes that every person on this planet likes to tinker, make things on your own or tries to find better solutions than the given ones. But why blame the people who are on that path? I really don´t blame anyone for anything, if a guy buys a saddle type depth gauge and uses that or doesn´t use a helping tool at all, no problem. Preferences. And maybe abilities and experience. I can´t make a sharp and well working chain out of a dull one without helping tools like a grinder and a depth gauge. That´s the way for me, noone says that this is the case for everyone.
It´s not MY theory. It´s an empirical thing. BobL describes this in way better words in his thread than I am capable of. Many people share the experience that a constant cutting angle maintains the chain´s cutting performance through its life. You can achieve this constant angle with several methods, a DAF, manual measurement with a caliper, you can use a progressive depth gauge and can achieve rather constant angles. I consider the 'constant cutting angle' approach as a given. I don´t start with the big bang. I start with BobL´s thread as a given basis that I personally don´t question.
My personal testing / experience: I made some small tests with varying raker depths, yes. I tried cutting soft wood and hard wood, normal wood in the summer and frozen wood in the winter. I tried cutting lengthwise to the wood with a 'normal' chain (30° angle). I did this jobs with high and very low rakers. And simply FELT the differences. Especially when working in the 'edge area' when using extreme cutting angles with very hard wood e.g.
So the chain went through like butter or very roughly, there were differences in speed, the handling and so on.
For me it is not debatable that a chain (freshly sharpened) at its end of life point with the default raker depth of 25 mil has IRONIC MODE ON a little bit IRONIC MODE OFF less performance than a chain with the maintained cutting angle corresponding to the initial value of raker depth.
I have no personal theory in this matter. And I don´t make field studies or tests under laboratory conditions if you´re aiming to that direction. That would maybe a point when producing and selling something, but not when doing 'mumbo jumbo' (seeing posts above) in my free time
---------------------
It seems to be a hobby of some of you guys here to find in an acribic way the piece of rope within my arguments to hang me. If you consider me being a turd as well, you could skip this effort and say that in a more directly manner. No need to analyze all of my words.