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

[Philbert]

Lots of comments how the length of the cutter does not matter, as long as the depth gauge is matched to the individual cutter. They focus on cutter height.

But the width of the cutter ('tooth set') is also related to cutter length. A shorter, narrower cutter will not define the walls of the kerf as well, and some of those fibers will have to be recut by subsequent teeth.

Chain might still cut, but not as smoothly or as efficiently, as with equal length cutters.

Philbert

 

[PogoInTheWoods]

I don't remember ever stating the length of the cutter "does not matter", just that varying lengths won't make your saw cut in circles if the depth gauges are maintained in a relatively attentive fashion with a progressive type tool. I believe I also mentioned the fact that a smaller tooth would grab a more narrow chip, (but not necessarily thinner). Even a chain with perfectly even length cutters grabs varying sizes of chips just by the nature of how a chain works.

However, I did make the statement that most folks would never notice the difference between a chain with perfectly matched cutters and one with a handful of uneven cutters when the depth gauges are adjusted appropriately. And I stand by that statement.

I suppose they could always grab a micrometer or caliper and measure the chips!

 

[hannes69]

Much more palatable for the masses..., and saves me the looming frustration of trying to get all those measurements! I will, however, still attempt to measure some .404 so it can at least be represented to some degree.

Hmpf Someone has to do these measurements, really. Some time in the future there has to be a new simplified thread dealing with this topic. The evolution thing. BobL built something upon Carlton material, I built something up upon BobL´s thread, now later on you get back to Carlton material ( ) and finally all this 'prework' finds its way into another thread (maybe not started by me!). My calculator now allows to know the resulting cutting angles for a given raker depth tool combined with a certain chain. I started the simplified list containing two entries. If this list should make some sense, it has to be filled properly. That means in my opinion 3/8, 3/8LP, .325 and .404 chain pitches. If the list shoul have some 'power' or 'weight', some measurments additional to mine have to be made. I don´t think that from 2 single measurements done by one person (one certain 3/8 chain, one certain 3/8LP chain) we can make general conclusions. It is possible to assume that there are some parallels, I personally can´t make such assumptions at this point. Too small data set, so simple in my opinion. That is the point that I mentioned in teh starting post, it´s a community project, there is a need that some people deliver something call it 'directly' or 'physically'.
In this thread there are many opinions, point of views, reports about experiences, critics and so on, but thereé definitely a huge lack of DIRECT support.
This words aren´t directed to your person obviously, you already have delivered useful numbers for real gauges and so made some measurements.
If there is the will to give something practicable and useful to the community, someone will have to make these measurements, there´s really no way around it. I personally won´t buy chain pitches I have no use for. This measuring task is maybe not very amusing, but on the other side it is not magic and it really can be done.
I know, it´s easy to write some lines in a forum, it´s way harder to actually DO something.

 

[hannes69]

You guys paid by the word?

Yes In reality I´m an influencer paid by Stihl

 

[PogoInTheWoods]

Another curiosity is how the Carlton numbers provided in the illustration would translate into degrees of slope..., generally speaking given no actual data for the chain itself. Probably not something that could be easily ball-parked, tho.

 

[PogoInTheWoods]

Is there something in the calculations that addresses the effect of the change in axis point for the attack position of the cutter as it gets smaller? Seems to me to be a fairly critical consideration regardless of the type of chain.

 

[Westboastfaller]

I wasn't ready to get into this yet. I think you read the whole thread but my posts? I talked about "attack mode in the first post I addressed to you I believe. When I said to Hannes before you came on, ..." these numbers were not new to me, I got them from Carlton and much more 15 yrs ago from a little book called 'Everything you want to know about saw chain"
...and said I would share "the much more" later. I haven't read it as I'm really tired but I was going to bring it up to Hannes as a negative in terms of running a chain past the rivot as they refer to this as the teetor tottter affect (I have talked about it 2-3 times on this site)
After the tooth is shorter than the rivet (pivot point) instead of going up in the air as would a long tooth, it will go down as soon as it hits the wood essentially pull out of the cut. Its true but it doesn't totally work that way. It takes the chip. I remembered in the early 90', a saw builder friend raced down in Oregon when he worded for Shindiawa and got second on a small class and used little hooks and thinned the cutter width.

Carlton had a lot of emphasis on not over hooking and low rakers. I believe they want to discouraged any extended use of a chain with the teeter totter affect. as well excessive strain on the mental.

Chain Propaganda from the evil empire's.

I'll have to read all that after sleep.

Let's talk about Billy
I'm going to post about 4 vidios of about 6 that I saw and break your little hearts.
Two are on wedging and
Two on film that barber chaired.
I'll be filling in the blanks and give a far better education on how it really is.
Get ready for some level changing boys.
When he does get small falling work,he grinds his chains.. Hmm
Even cutters.
He was ranting in one video that the gauge makes raker, teeth and chips "EXACTLY" the same. Well we know that's not true
That was a massive exaggeration an that "4ft Maple? 38" max . May have been 45" at the butt.
Its was up to his belt when the cut dropped. Thats only 62% of the volume he claimed. 5/8
Noboby ever said you can't run a chain with uneven cutters for the 20th time. So what got proved again?I would like to know how many chains he has really aborted?

...not often I am the third longest poster in a thread?

 

[hannes69]

The "constant cutting angle concept" term is actually a fallacy in all of this and would be more accurately described as "optimum desired cutting angle" to accommodate all of the actual variables and nuances being considered (and applied to/for) in any given cutting situation. Subjective? Yes. More appropriate? I think so, but that's just me.

Now things really get interesting, indeed
Once again the evolution thing, I like it!
I think in such a way: There was the time with counting file strokes and constant depth tools. That meant the right raker depth at the beginning of a chain´s life and a more and more 'wrong' raker depth towards the chain´s end of life. Then there came the progressive approach, probably started by Carlton and then copied by other manufacturers. So we have a correct raker depth at the beginning and a more correct raker depth towards the end.
Ok, maybe a real constant cutting angle has some sideeffects or maybe is a little bit overkill at the very end of a chain´s life, maybe. But aiming for it is at least the right direction in my opinion. And all progressive tools actually don´t achieve a constant cutting angle, even my type 2 doesn´t that
As I said, the 'constant cutting angle' concept is surely a simplification. But at least a better working simplification comapared to the 'constant depth' concept.
I don´t see a contradiction in this topic at this point. Your ideas at this point fit perfectly to the recent work. My calculator gives numbers for a given tool combined with a given chain. And until now we used a small simplification to make the hard to understand topic a little bit easier. It seems a very good point of you to question what to aim for.
This is an additional topic which leads to further inevestigation Maybe there´s a way to calculate your 'optimum desired cutting angle' related to cutter wearing
Carlton says in this document, that "cutter 2 needs 0.045" instead of the initial 0.027". When these numbers don´t get out from HarleyT´s a... they most come from somewhere grounded. Or maybe they say we need this number because the FOP delivers this number by accident ? There must be some reason.
I have to carefully read this stuff and have to think about it. You speak of head-scratching. Yes. I have a sort of mathematical brain, but this stuff is not so easy. Some pivot points, angles, lengths and positions, something spins here and there, and lifts and falls, hmmm. I see some papers and pencil with many confusing drawings coming. And in the end, like in alchemy, the new calculator delivering 'optimum desired cutting angles' makes gold out of the dirt

I've re-read this whole thread (yeah, I really did, folks) and found no specific mention of it anywhere.

yeah, this whole thread Leading to nirvana or apocalypse... The problem is, that until now we have no actual numbers for the optimum angles. Carlton maybe has these, but maybe they won´t offer the secret formula
Everything has to be done on your own, so...
Now we are once again in the field between theory and practice. Can we really get these 'perfect' numbers and are they really necessary? It seems we have to aim for numbers between 'constant depth' and 'constant angle'. Type and type 2 gauges already are in this ballpark. They aren´t a DAF and they aren´t a lousy saddle tool. Type 1 is a little bit more on the saddle side and type 2 more on the DAF side.

And then it is questionable if Carlton can claim the 'truth' only for their point of view.
We´re dealing here with mathematical/physical models. You can simplify them (as we always try to do when aiming for practical solutions) and you can make them more and more complex (when trying to catch most of 'reality' in order not to forget or neglect something important). In the end you only can try it. If someone says 'my chain has the exact same performance through its life when using a constant depth gauge' then this is reality for the person saying this. When I personally say 'my chain maintains a similar performance through its life when using my selfmade gauge type 2' then this is my impression and my reality.
I don´t think that someone of us will make tests under lab conditions. So we will end with a solution, that feels good in the end.
And in the end the chain manufacturers profit the most when reading this thread They make use of our brains and even don´t have to pay for it...

 

[hannes69]

Another curiosity is how the Carlton numbers provided in the illustration would translate into degrees of slope..., generally speaking given no actual data for the chain itself. Probably not something that could be easily ball-parked, tho.

Is there something in the calculations that addresses the effect of the change in axis point for the attack position of the cutter as it gets smaller? Seems to me to be a fairly critical consideration regardless of the type of chain.

I hope to find something out about these topics. Should hopefully all work with plain trigonometry, like the inner world of my calculator Triangles and angles and more triangles and even more angles

 

[hannes69]

Carlton had a lot of emphasis on not over hooking and low rakers. I believe they want to discouraged any extended use of a chain.

That´s an important point I think. How do you say it, take words from such sources with a grain of salt? The manufacturers normally should not be very interested in publishing too much of the 'real truth' and instead more of the 'truth' we SHOULD hear in their opinion.... Most of the money they make with chains, far less with depth gauge tools. We´ll have to find out the truth by ourselves
That´s the reason for all of this mumbo jumbo here...

 

[PogoInTheWoods]

Can we really get these 'perfect' numbers and are they really necessary?

Exactly. But striving for "consistently effective" should always be a main component of the initiative as has been mentioned several times. And Carlton certainly set a different standard with their introduction of the FOP. And to quote that Will Sonnet line..., "No brag. Just fact". It does what they say it does for a given type of their chain. No denying that.

The cutter hinge point seemed to me another 'possibly quantifiable' element to toss into the mix, both for additional consideration and to possibly explain and/or justify some unanticipated variances in the overall approach to achieving desirable performance results both in the calculations and with the chain itself. No more. No less.

I wasn't ready to get into this yet.

You weren't ready yet? So sorry I didn't adhere to your schedule of how the thread should proceed. Are you kidding?

I'm aware of your Carlton references and all the other "disturbances" that affect how a cut may or may not go. I simply brought it up in a more relevant context to the actual purpose of the thread instead of some vague and mysterious faller-esque BS. That's one of the reasons I brought it up, but evidently before you thought the thread was ready for a simple, uncomplicated version lacking your expert perspective. So sorry, dude.

Regarding BBR and his antics, he is what he is. Take it or leave it for what it may be worth. Getting into any extended criticism here about his YouTube channel would be completely pointless to everyone..., except maybe yourself. The vids spoke for themselves..., basically entertainment in a lighthearted vein that was generally associated with the subjects at hand and intended to break the monotony of the thread a little. A coupla little harmless jabs at the caliper crowd and some fun with a 10-10 and you want to take it to a whole other level? That would be absolutely counterproductive to the thread, and frankly, absurd.

I'll also mention in my not so humble opinion that your increasingly condescending attitude isn't doing yourself or anyone else any favors when it comes to helping the cause to be more easily understood and accessible by folks who may actually want to learn more here. Hannes has chilled a bit and it clearly shows. It's also appreciated..., at least by me. Now its your turn.

I'm gonna take a stab at measuring up some Stihl 46RM tonight. I sincerely hope you get what is obviously some badly needed sleep. Then reconsider how you can possibly be more effective here without coming off as such a d**k, if indeed that's even possible.

 

[edisto]

Let's talk about Billy

It's the boat, my friends...gotta rock it like a boat...

 

[Westboastfaller]

There are actually two pivot points to consider here. For the type 2 tool, one is the rivet when referring for the tool. The other is the heel of the cutting tooth behind the rivet...., referred to by Carlton as the hinge point. For the type 1 tool it would be the

Think I'll pass on reading again about the teeter totter affect. I don't believe it to be factual in the field, only theory.
I OD'd on that stuff a long time ago. As I was saying about a "race chain" as well understanding where the decrease cutting angle comes from then I couldn't find It relevant here prior to you posting, as the same now.
This is about the "horizontal flat" WHERE THE RAKER IS SET not attack mode. In attack mode the raker CONTROLS that.

I was going to bring it up as one of those.."as a matter of fact " things.
but its not relevant to this.


You quoted Hannes saying ..."Its
all about the pivot point (base) that determines the cutting angle"

The base is at a fixed height so once it it established its a basic fixed pivot.
(Constant)
The cutter has a consistent angle. example stihl RM 11.8°)
The gauge in a straight edge so its design gives a constant angle. So what actually determines the decreasing cutting angle?

*The increased distance that the wearing tooth touches on the raker gauge each time. ,(increased run)

Say the cutters had a different design and they never retreated as you sharpened but just got lower (opossed to lower and further away each time) then as they got lower the raker ratio to cutter wear ratio would always increase as the angle flatend obviously and increasing your cutting angle as the chain wore. This is because the run remains constant in this hypothetical scenario.

A small amount of travel closer to A pivot is a great deal more movment at the tip than the same small amount of travel close to the tip. It wouldn't move the tip much in compression. This is what the tooth does as it moves further away.
If the rise stays constant but the run increases then angle becomes less.

The cutter wear increases the run and reduces the cutting angle.

That's it. You have to view it through trig with it being a triangle.



*Edit

 

[PogoInTheWoods]

I did my best to come up with some measurements for Stihl 46RM .404 chain (.063 gauge, of course). I know the Oregon LG is also of particular interest to compare with the Stihl RS but what I though I had on the tail end of a reel was actually the Vanguard stuff. I do have a brand new loop of Husky H46 which I believe to be Oregon 72LPX. I may be able to get to that later as an additional 3/8's player, but think some .325 numbers would be more useful now to round out the initial batch of rough data for the common chain sizes. And I DO emphasize rough when it comes to the numbers I'm presenting here. I went through part of the exercise last night and then went through everything again a couple more times this morning. Nothing elaborate involved. Digital caliper, straight edge, keen eye, and a bunch of repetition to hopefully arrive at usable mean numbers. And with no means to accurately determine the cutting angle, I simply used what Stihl publishes as their maintenance spec for that entry. Also of note was considerable inconsistency among rivet diameters. I averaged out a bunch of measurements against a new unused preset to arrive at the 5mm number..., which certainly sounds like a reasonable and nicely rounded choice for the task at hand. (The preset itself even had slightly different rivet diameters.)

Anyway...

For the Type 1 parameters:

A) Cutter/Raker distance averaged 6.40mm
B) Cutter Height measured from top of tie strap averaged 5.75mm
C) Cutting Angle as published by Stihl in their maintenance specs (and presumably their starting point) is 0.030" (.80mm)

For the Type 2 parameters:

A) Cutter/Raker distance averaged 6.40mm
B) Cutter Height measured from center of rivet averaged 9.80mm
C) Cutting Angle - Again Stihl spec of 0.030" (.80mm)
D) Horizontal Rivet/Raker Distance measured from center of rivet to inside edge of raker (per illustration in the software) averaged 18.75mm
E) Rivet Diameters were inconsistent but averaged right in the 5.00mm ballpark.

The entire exercise took a little over an hour and a half which wasn't too bad. I did mess with a few different chains and presets just to get my feet wet before committing any numbers to paper. The larger profile chain certainly helped in figuring out the easiest methods to use for obtaining the measurements. Going from .404 to .325 will certainly be quite the contrast, tho. I imagine the margin of error will be quite a bit larger for the smaller chain without the use of more precise measuring tools.

Should be interesting to see what these numbers spit out with the calculator. I do know that the 'off the roll' raker setting corresponds perfectly with the "soft" position of the Husky gauge if that lends anything of particular interest to the overall conclusions.

Get those propellor hats wound up and have at it, fellas.

 

[hannes69]

The cutter hinge point seemed to me another 'possibly quantifiable' element to toss into the mix, both for additional consideration and to possibly explain and/or justify some unanticipated variances in the overall approach to achieving desirable performance results both in the calculations and with the chain itself. No more. No less.

Yes Let´s see if it is quantifiable for my brain, haven´t done my homework yet... At least I took two chains, one brand new, the other one more than half worn so the tip of the cutter is behind the rivet as pivot point. I must confess I never really thought about every finest detail concerning the moving cutters, now I see what´s happening, yes. Should hopefully lead to a similar kind of math like the raker depth gauge calculations. Angles.

I simply brought it up in a more relevant context to the actual purpose of the thread instead of some vague and mysterious faller-esque BS.

I must get used to the rough and raw language from the rough and raw community here I think you´re a little bit harsh with your words here, but I certainly know what you mean and I sometimes have problems exactly dealing with that. I´m often confronted with special technical terms on one side, on the other side terms from very colloquial language. And sometimes I have problems with the missing context. I often have a feeling that certain statements seem to be right, they sound like that, but I don´t REALLY get the meaning because of the lack of context. That´s often a motley mix of personal experience, approaches from technical literature combined with youtube videos Some of the information sometimes 'hangs in the air' a little bit, I can´t make the relevant connections between the information. Yes, sometimes 'vague and mysterious', but I wouldn´t call it BS.

I'll also mention in my not so humble opinion that your increasingly condescending attitude isn't doing yourself or anyone else any favors when it comes to helping the cause to be more easily understood and accessible by folks who may actually want to learn more here. Hannes has chilled a bit and it clearly shows. It's also appreciated..., at least by me. Now its your turn.

Hmm, dark clouds coming along once more in this thread...
I try to chill, yes.
It´s a little bit problematic, when the already very small number of people really participating in this thread start to point a gun at each other. There aren´t many people in this thread really interested in the topic and keep the thread alive, you can count them on one hand (maybe not using all fingers...).
What was the youtube link from Philbert? Why can´t we be friends?

I did my best to come up with some measurements for Stihl 46RM .404 chain

Thanks
Now the list gets longer

I may be able to get to that later as an additional 3/8's player, but think some .325 numbers would be more useful now to round out the initial batch of rough data for the common chain sizes.

Yes.

And I DO emphasize rough when it comes to the numbers I'm presenting here.

How could a manual measurement using calipers NOT be rough? It should be sufficient though.

Also of note was considerable inconsistency among rivet diameters.

Yes, I made the same experience with my measurements. I measured 4.35 - 4.65 mm. That leads to cutting angle deviations of +/- 0.2° regarding the type 2 usage. Neglectable

Should be interesting to see what these numbers spit out with the calculator. I do know that the 'off the roll' raker setting corresponds perfectly with the "soft" position of the Husky gauge if that lends anything of particular interest to the overall conclusions.

Your numbers should be in the right range. Evidence: Putting virtually the Husky .404 gauge onto this chain using the soft setting, leads to an initial raker depth of 28.5 mil for a brand new chain. In this context and by the given accuracy, 28.5 = 30.0
Of course I will publish the calculator´s results immediately when having the full data set
I could give the number above for the new chain with the given data, but I can´t deliver the whole list because one figure is missing, the 'cutter´s angle', so the slope of the cutter itself Time for the DAF or using another method (I used a very straight metal ruler, this sits perfectly onto the cutter without wobbling, laying this onto a table and align the chain in cutting direction with the table edge by the help of a 90° bent metal piece. The ruler 'extends' the cutter. After perfectly aligning this setup I removed the chain and let the ruler on its place. Then I made a pencil line along the ruler reaching to the table´s edge. Now there´s the wanted angle in a large version on the table This method gave me very consistent results, +/-0.2° variation). I can´t simply assume that this angle is the same for a .404 and a 3/8 chain. Additionally the initial length of the cutter would be interesting to find a suitable table length for the cutter wearing.

Many thanks for the measurements once again, I know the effort.

 

[KiwiBro]

Time for the DAF

Welcome aboard.

 

[hannes69]

Welcome aboard.

Yes, sometimes the different worlds melt together

 

[PogoInTheWoods]

one figure is missing, the 'cutter´s angle',

I evidently confused 'cutter's angle' with 'cutting angle'. I presume you're referring to the top plate angle of the cutter from the leading edge sloping back to the heel? Definitely out of my pay range there. And yes, a DAF would certainly be the way to go for that.

 

[hannes69]

I presume you're referring to the top plate angle of the cutter from the leading edge sloping back to the heel?

Confirmed.

Definitely out of my pay range there. And yes, a DAF would certainly be the way to go for that.

I already gave the work instruction above A DAF would be better, I personally don´t own one, so I had to improve. This method gives consistent numbers and the angle´s value showed up with my photo method as well.

 

[Westboastfaller]

I´m not so sure, is here a sort of misunderstanding?
and when you speak of a "tall cutter" I have the impression that you maybe think that there are 2 different Stihl chains involved in my software, measurements and setup?
It is always the same Stihl 3/8 RM chain. The 'cutter height' is the naming for a measurement within my software (couldn´t find a better name) that actually means 'distance from highest point of the cutter down to the pivot point of the gauge'. That are simply 2 different measurements depending on the gauge type. Type 1 sits onto the tie strap, type 2 onto a rivet. So the 2 measurements are different, but I call them both 'cutter height'... It is a kind of height of the cutter, it´s only a question what the base reference point of the height is

Apparently he doesn't read your posts. "twice". haha
Forwarded for remedial training purposes only.
I wasn't ready anyways.
*today I will be the best person I can be*


Different confusion! I'm sorry, I didn't read
*today I'll be the best person I can possibly be*