Saw technique???

southsoundtree

Well-Known Member
I suppose it does do that too, but it seems like simply kerfing the corners of the hinges does the same thing and is way less fiddly.
Could it be they know things about their process that we don't?

If they are peeling veneer, they may want what they are getting in the butt.

Low, low stumps and forwarders instead of skidders, part of the reason.
 

southsoundtree

Well-Known Member
The horizontal first is not for tight, tight lays with big saws with awkward, wet footing, IME.


You can get away with lots with small and medium saws.

You can get away with a lot in good cutting conditions.

If you have 15-20* to lay the trunk into, sure you can shoot from the hip/ shoulder-up. When I've got a tight lay, I use the gunning sights like a sniper, no wishful gunning looking from above.





If you're a pro Feller, you're good to go, either way. You're a pro feller. You can also slam in all your cuts from either side, conventional or Humboldt.



Idk, steep ground, wet, mossy, slippery flares, I'm not going to risk pulling that big saw down on top of me while trying to line up, looking from above.

Slam those dogs in, get the saw weight on the tree.

If you have to cut high on the trunk, same thing,
and a conventional is going to be harder to cut, remove the face cut chunk, clean up if needed.


I think conventional could be renamed the ax-chopper way.

Ymmv
 

benfuest

Member
Southsoundtree is right we use alot of fowarders, some skidders but alot of fowarders. Some of what you guys say I dont understand, I think its a terminolagy thing. You say wedge cut, we say sink. You say but swell, we say butress flare. Removing the butress flare serves more than one perpose. Yes it helps keep the timber in the round for loading and miling but it also provides a better foundation for a felling wedge. In the UK all the timber we fell is plantation grown,planted at 2 meter spacings and thinned out over the years. So its all pretty much the same. Take Spruce for example its felled, trimed and cut to length at the stump. So the butt end is the high value. A typical spec is a saw log at12 foot 2 inches with a top diamiter under bark of say 8 inches. A tree mite yeald four or five of these then down on spec to Bars at 6 foot 2 with atop diamiter of 5 inches, under bark. The reason we cutt so low to ground is to maximise on the potential spec. An inch at the bottom is worth a foot at the top. If you cutt a high stump instead of 5 saw logs you mite only get 4, because of tapper. Our bars on the saw are shorter because we trim at stump and at speed. A four foot bar makes this very dificult indeed. Each cutter is paid on his/her output.

In Wales where I work there is a lot of very steep ground with big Douglas, sky lines rule. Here the cutter just tips them over and the trimming is done on the landing by harvester/proccesor. I can see that the humbolt may well have its use under these conditions although personaly not seen it ussed.
 

benfuest

Member
I like this sort of conversation, its interesting. Ive worked alot in the USA but as an educator for Davey, not a cutter. Theres one thing that bothers me with the humbolt cut, and that is. Your making the diagonal felling cut in an upward direction. I understand you could use the dogs to bite in a leever, but arnt you cutting upwards so having to lift the saw rather than using gravity by cutting down?
 

Mitch Hoy

Active Member
Evidently this is controversial, but I always angle cut first. It’s much easier to gun the angle and then cut perpendicular to the grain from corner to corner, humbolt or conventional. I’m all about simplicity and consistency. This is also why I usually add a blockout to a conventional notch rather than creating an open face (for ground falling cuts) to create the same effect. Trying to cut twice on a floating plane is hard. Cutting to something relative like the grain is not. I was trained the traditional way and it took a lot of experimentation to finally question why one wouldn’t angle cut first. Now it is standard procedure for me. I get consistent results and rely heavily on my skills as a faller.
 

southsoundtree

Well-Known Member
I like this sort of conversation, its interesting. Ive worked alot in the USA but as an educator for Davey, not a cutter. Theres one thing that bothers me with the humbolt cut, and that is. Your making the diagonal felling cut in an upward direction. I understand you could use the dogs to bite in a leever, but arnt you cutting upwards so having to lift the saw rather than using gravity by cutting down?
Sharp chain pretty much does the work. Drop out/ pop out a heavy gob/ facecut with gravity.


Ezpz
 

southsoundtree

Well-Known Member
Evidently this is controversial, but I always angle cut first. It’s much easier to gun the angle and then cut perpendicular to the grain from corner to corner, humbolt or conventional. I’m all about simplicity and consistency. This is also why I usually add a blockout to a conventional notch rather than creating an open face (for ground falling cuts) to create the same effect. Trying to cut twice on a floating plane is hard. Cutting to something relative like the grain is not. I was trained the traditional way and it took a lot of experimentation to finally question why one wouldn’t angle cut first. Now it is standard procedure for me. I get consistent results and rely heavily on my skills as a faller.
...It took a lot of time...

Horizontal first, the rookie can gun it right, first time. Then, the second, third...


Usually they don't. They use hope, not an aimed-like-a-rifle accuracy.


How does one correct an angle-first, by 5*?


How does angle-first pan out when really needed, big trees, wider than big bars?
 

Mitch Hoy

Active Member
...It took a lot of time...

Horizontal first, the rookie can gun it right, first time. Then, the second, third...


Usually they don't. They use hope, not an aimed-like-a-rifle accuracy.


How does one correct an angle-first, by 5*?


How does angle-first pan out when really needed, big trees, wider than big bars?
Angle first does great for big trees. I have taught many how to fall with success following these guidelines:
1. Choose lay
2. Mark lay
3. Square saw to grain
4. Point falling sight at target
5. Angle saw
6. Cut to desired depth
7. Square saw perpendicular to grain
8. Cut from corner to corner, level across the grain.

For large trees you just cut to depth and tip out the other side a la Beranek. Then cut from corner to corner, level across the grain.

If for some reason you mess up this incredibly simple process of creating basic geometry, relative to a common factor, you can correct by cutting a new angle. Having a kerf through the face doesn’t affect its ability to close, as long as you put your hinge below your original cut. Kind of like normal.

The only reason I can think of to not angle first is if you are harvesting, and concerned about timber length. When you angle in, you ballpark where your face will be to depth, whereas when you level cut first you are setting your length.
 

benfuest

Member
I get it, employing the Humboldt means the big bit can just fall out. Its dificult to put the conversation together with diferences in the way we talk. Its a shame. I guess ther's no substitute for standing infront of the tree together. :)
 

benfuest

Member
I like what Mitch said, I can understand. With regard to saving timber in production cutting experiance counts. Standard depth says a quarter to a fifth, however this can be reduced to keep the sink in the slap wood, a bit. I reckon the Humboldt will leave more of the stick in the ground.
 

rico

Well-Known Member
I'll bite, why should we cut the angle first? Do they cut the angle for a Humboldt cut too, or just conventional?

Btw, I tried your straight leg nonsense today. Wtf, man. I think you get away with it because your trees are straight. I was up in a dead pine canopy going koala half the time, but I did try to straighten out more. It was fine on spar, but just too balancy in the top...

"Straight leg Nonsense." Really Colb? Excuse me if I choose to take the word of a couple hundred years of old school climbers over that of an internet trained arborist. Now I reckon I have at least a thousand more hours of experience in spurs than yourself colb, so I will let my spur climbing speak for itself. Like any other technique/method, nothing works in every situation, so if you don't understand when and where to use a valuable technique, then I really can't help you out buddy?

You go ahead and stand in a big conifer for 6-7 hours with your knees and hips bent, leaning into the tree, with your butt stinking out colb. Not only will you never allow your muscles, tendons, and ligaments to relax, but you will be beating the shit out of your joints and your muscle skeletal system. As a bonus all this will be done while you look like a monkey fucking a nice hairy knothole!! Operate like that for 30-40 years and let me know how that works out. I have seen bent-kneed climbers with 10-15 years of experience climbing who's knees, hips, and low backs were jacked up to the point where they were thinking about getting out of the game. Get them to straighten up and relaxed when their working a tree, and lo and behold they healed up.

When standing on a leaner one of the quickest & easiest things you can do to create a little more stability is to simply step down into your flip-line a little, meaning your flip-line is higher up relative to your waist line. If you want to create even more stability you can continue riding your flip-line a little higher, and stand with one leg bent and one leg straight. This creates a bit of a triangle which in turn creates more stability.

BTW, we do have many types of leaning hardwoods down here, and I myself wreak plenty of severely leaning trees and seem to have no problem using my straight legs style when appropriate.
 
Last edited:

Barc Buster

Well-Known Member
Could it be they know things about their process that we don't?

If they are peeling veneer, they may want what they are getting in the butt.

Low, low stumps and forwarders instead of skidders, part of the reason.
Agree as a system it seems to serve them very well in the context which it's being used. I enjoy watching a pro feller about his business regardless of how he's putting trees on the ground. Apply that same system to a midwest yard tree though and its fiddly diddly doo. Fantastic discussion regardless.
 

rico

Well-Known Member
I get it, employing the Humboldt means the big bit can just fall out. Its dificult to put the conversation together with diferences in the way we talk. Its a shame. I guess ther's no substitute for standing infront of the tree together. :)
First let me say that I am really enjoying your input here benfuest!

Just like some of the pro fallers I know, I myself believe that a conventional is ever-so-slightly more accurate than a Humboldt. Don't ask me why but this is a conclusion some of us have come to, and please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe folks like Mr. Dent and Mr. Hotsaws have stated the same? Back in the day when I was falling for a living it was Humboldts or go fucking home. Regardless I always felt that a conventional was a little bit more accurate, so I would use a conventional in very tight lays. Now that I'm just a hack old tree-man I go conventional on everything, except on the very rare occasion that a Humboldt is called for.
 
Last edited:

benfuest

Member
Thanks Rico, your very kind. I should point out that over here a climber and a cutter are two very diferent beasts. Im a comercial faller/cutter been doing it for nearly thirty years, and never climbed a tree ever. Yes I understand a little of arb but Im a cutter. Arb lads dont go into the woods, they climb, prune and do residential tree work. The two dont mix. I was wondering what was meant by Straight leg and that but from your last post I understand your talking stance and ergonomics in the tree. Its the same on the ground. Take me Im 5 foot 6 and a bit and weigh naff all. But I believe Ive stayed in the job by employing sound tequnique in my felling practice. Sure theres pain but I put that down to a damp climate. In the woods I treat everyone as equals, there all idiots with the abilaty to kill me until they proove otherwise and I expect the same. The worst insult we have is to award a guy the DCM, otherwise known as the "Dont Come Monday". Like most I have some pictures and if I can work out how Ill try to post. Kit and the type of work ext. As I write Im reminded of early contracts on high value Ok stands. EWording would go somthing like. "any tree damaged due to insuficient boreing back cutting or poor directional felling will not be paid for, and any tree deemed to felled from a high stump will not be paid for" Learn fast or starve.
 

rico

Well-Known Member
Thanks Rico, your very kind. I should point out that over here a climber and a cutter are two very diferent beasts. Im a comercial faller/cutter been doing it for nearly thirty years, and never climbed a tree ever. Yes I understand a little of arb but Im a cutter. Arb lads dont go into the woods, they climb, prune and do residential tree work. The two dont mix. I was wondering what was meant by Straight leg and that but from your last post I understand your talking stance and ergonomics in the tree. Its the same on the ground. Take me Im 5 foot 6 and a bit and weigh naff all. But I believe Ive stayed in the job by employing sound tequnique in my felling practice. Sure theres pain but I put that down to a damp climate. In the woods I treat everyone as equals, there all idiots with the abilaty to kill me until they proove otherwise and I expect the same. The worst insult we have is to award a guy the DCM, otherwise known as the "Dont Come Monday". Like most I have some pictures and if I can work out how Ill try to post. Kit and the type of work ext. As I write Im reminded of early contracts on high value Ok stands. EWording would go somthing like. "any tree damaged due to insuficient boreing back cutting or poor directional felling will not be paid for, and any tree deemed to felled from a high stump will not be paid for" Learn fast or starve.
Funny but in my work environment it is a good thing to have experience in both the logging/falling world and the arb world. Many of the great loggers, buckers, mean mutherfucker, fallers, and climbers in my area do just that. I myself started out as a yarder logger, but one who climbed, topped trees, and ring spar poles for lift when it was needed. The more I climbed and blew big tops the more I loved it. Slowly over a decade or so I transitioned from being a full time logger , and began splitting my time between the 2.

The easiest way for me to explain the straight leg vs bent leg climbing style is this- When we are standing in line at the bank for 10 minutes do we stand with our knees bent, our hips bent, and our ass sticking out in the wind? Hell No! Beside looking kinda silly it would get tiring and painful real quick. We are engineered to stand straight legged. Nuff said!!!!
 
Last edited:
Top