Cut protection from electric saws

Tom Dunlap

Tom Dunlap

Here from the beginning
Administrator
Location
Retired in Minneapolis
What is the current standing from companies making cut resistant leg protection in regards to electric/battery saws?

Is Clogger the only company that rates their gear for electric saws?

If so, how are companies staying compliant?
 
I'm just thinking off the top of my head here, but since chainsaw pants are rated by chain speed (meters per second), and since all electric saws are slower chain speed than any gas saw, I would think the point is mute. If they are rated for the slowest gas saw chain speed the electrics would fall under that umbrella. My thoughts on the matter at least.
To say they are rated for electric would just be an advertising gimmick. Sort of like saying Pyrex glassware, which can go from the freezer into a 400 degree oven is rated as dishwasher safe, where it is squired with water and then warmed to 150 degrees to dry it. Silly, but some people think it is an important thing and buy it because of that statement. If PPE is rated for the minimum required 2,750 feet per minute, they are automatically rated for any electric chainsaw that is currently produced.
 
Last edited:
Shadowscape said:
I'm just thinking off the top of my head here, but since chainsaw pants are rated by chain speed (meters per second), and since all electric saws are slower chain speed than any gas saw, I would think the point is mute. If they are rated for the slowest gas saw chain speed the electrics would fall under that umbrella. My thoughts on the matter at least.
To say they are rated for electric would just be an advertising gimmick. Sort of like saying Pyrex glassware, which can go from the freezer into a 400 degree oven is rated as dishwasher safe, where it is squired with water and then warmed to 150 degrees to dry it. Silly, but some people think it is an important thing and buy it because of that statement. If PPE is rated for the minimum required 2,750 feet per minute, they are automatically rated for any electric chainsaw that is currently produced.
Click to expand...

Many people are concerned that the lack of a traditional clutch will allow electric saws to penetrate any saw protection, since saw pro is designed to jam the clutch with fibers and slow the chain with cut-resistant strands. Some people also raise concerns about torque.

Since there are no saw pro standards that specifically address electric saws, Clogger tested it themselves to know whether any of the concerns were valid. In their testing, their products perform just as well with electric products as they do with gas powered.

They aren’t trying to be gimmicky- they’ve heard the concerns and did something to find out if the concerns were warranted. I’ve had the pleasure of conversing with the Clogger team several times in a variety of settings. Nothing gimmicky about them. They are genuinely interested in the goings on and needs in our industry, and they are committed to making the best product they can to contribute to our progress.

Do other brands perform just as well against electric? Probably, but they haven’t done the legwork to say so confidently, so Clogger gets the marketing advantage. Did they do so to be on top as trends shift in the industry and questions are raised? Sure, but they did the legwork to get there legitimately.

I know of large entities that pulled all battery saws from the field (hundreds) almost immediately after purchase because of the above mentioned fears. Sure, clogger has positioned themselves to capitalize off of this type of thing, but again, they did the work to get there.

While there are many companies out there just passing tests to push product, Clogger is always working to exceed standards, point out the weaknesses in testing standards, and push for new, better standards to keep all the manufacturers more accountable. I’ve personally witnessed the dark side of this situation. A saw pro brand passed the test, but their chaps fail to offer adequate protection because the system as a while was faulty. They’ve done nothing to change the product, and tried to claim the situation was the fault of the person setting up the scenario, when it was done under their supervision to their spec.

The test passing problem exposes workers in our and other industries to false security, believing that some label with numbers and letters means they’re protected. I stress to anyone I’m working with to take personal responsibility for their own safety, and to recognize that manufacturers are human, prone to mistakes and temptation. While I promote the proper use of PPE, I also believe the best safety is skill, good habits, and good teamwork. PPE is the last line of defense, and these days, subject to consumerism. I make it my responsibility to get to know the people making the tools I use. It takes work, but it is eye-opening!
 
Nice Clogger ad.
But back to the standards. How can you say, rated for electric chainsaw protection when there are no standards for electric chainsaws. The standards are based on chain speed? Legitimately any company that meets the standards for gas saw automatically meets the current standards for electric saws, whether it stops the saw or not. Goody two shoes for Clogger testing to see if it works on their gear. I would be very surprised if there was a major chainsaw protection company out there who hasn't done the same thing. And they all use the same plastic fibers, Polyester, Nylon, or Polyethylene (Engtex out of Sweden, Dyneema by a Dutch Co., and Avertic which most pants use). They each call the fibers by their own made-up name, just stuff it in different designs.
Under the current standards Clogger would be rated for nuclear powered chainsaws as well, as long as the chain speed remained under 2,750 feet per minute because they have shown that it stops a gas saw at that speed. There is nothing in the rules about what saw was used for the tests.
Now if they would change the standards to reflect the internal operations of the various saws, and testing was done, then a claim would be valid. But currently, it means squat.
Electric saws first need to be addressed by ANSI and OSHA and some standards written, then testing needs to be done to meet the new standards. Until that happens, anything stated by PPE companies is bullshit, because there are no standards other than chain speed.
Clogger has a good clothing design department. I give them credit for that. Beyond that they stuff their clothing with the same thing the rest of them do. Making a statement that their clothing was tested using electric chainsaws and it stopped the saws is fine. Saying it is rated is going a bit far because there are no such ratings.
I am not knocking Clogger. But let's call a duck, a duck.
 
Last edited:
Good notes.
I seem to remember a TreeBuzz thread on electric saw PPE a year or two ago where there was discussion about the torque curves of gas vs electric top handles being different which might have effected the stopping ability. Dunno.
The fibers released by the saw pants jam up the chain path/ sprocket the same way no matter the power source if that's what stops the chain.
I also seem to remember an ad or a TreeBuzz thread on the new Husky top handle just coming out where the statement was made to the effect that it's curve may be different yet (it doesn't bog down) and that it "re-starts itself" when it does (e.g. with electrics, software could be made to keep trying to get spin again two or three times . . . ). Coming from an experiemental science background, I do think that with electric saws, battery charge state may also be another variable that needs to be looked at and stated in the test results/ standard because for example, my battery blower kills it when fully charged but near the lower third of the battery charge, well not so much. It's really important to make sure you peg all the possible variables is all. Wonder if the new Husky top handle will be any different?
 
I don't want to chop up a pair of pants for research but I feel like it would likely stop my t540ixp, while the saw cuts fast it's also pretty easy to overload the motor and stop the saw. The t540ixp also doesn't have much room under the cover or throw out debris very well which imo would likely contribute to it quickly jamming up.

@Shadowscape I've gotta say even if they're all stuffing pretty much the same thing into the pants cloggers way of doing so is definitely different in terms of comfort and retaining it's shape.
 
I have a pair of zeros with one leg totally intact that I have saved in case some usefulness can be found in it. If anyone is willing to set clean the fibers out of their saw, I will submit them for test use. Since we already know that Clogger has teated this specifically, I was hoping to see what a bigger, commonly used saw would do to it. I’m not much of a saw mechanic, and am scared to have my 572 down for an unknown length of time, but the one intact pant leg is available for testing.
 
Matias said:
I have a pair of zeros with one leg totally intact that I have saved in case some usefulness can be found in it. If anyone is willing to set clean the fibers out of their saw, I will submit them for test use. Since we already know that Clogger has teated this specifically, I was hoping to see what a bigger, commonly used saw would do to it. I’m not much of a saw mechanic, and am scared to have my 572 down for an unknown length of time, but the one intact pant leg is available for testing.
Click to expand...
What happened to the other leg? Curious minds want to know.
 
my saw got thirsty for the taste of HMWPE and nylon. I grazed it just enough to pull a couple of strands into the sprocket. I was able to get it dislodged quickly in the tree without taking the cover off; just barely activated the cut pro, but It is not trustable for another go.
 
Crimsonking said:
Many people are concerned that the lack of a traditional clutch will allow electric saws to penetrate any saw protection, since saw pro is designed to jam the clutch with fibers and slow the chain with cut-resistant strands. Some people also raise concerns about torque.

Since there are no saw pro standards that specifically address electric saws, Clogger tested it themselves to know whether any of the concerns were valid. In their testing, their products perform just as well with electric products as they do with gas powered.

They aren’t trying to be gimmicky- they’ve heard the concerns and did something to find out if the concerns were warranted. I’ve had the pleasure of conversing with the Clogger team several times in a variety of settings. Nothing gimmicky about them. They are genuinely interested in the goings on and needs in our industry, and they are committed to making the best product they can to contribute to our progress.

Do other brands perform just as well against electric? Probably, but they haven’t done the legwork to say so confidently, so Clogger gets the marketing advantage. Did they do so to be on top as trends shift in the industry and questions are raised? Sure, but they did the legwork to get there legitimately.

I know of large entities that pulled all battery saws from the field (hundreds) almost immediately after purchase because of the above mentioned fears. Sure, clogger has positioned themselves to capitalize off of this type of thing, but again, they did the work to get there.

While there are many companies out there just passing tests to push product, Clogger is always working to exceed standards, point out the weaknesses in testing standards, and push for new, better standards to keep all the manufacturers more accountable. I’ve personally witnessed the dark side of this situation. A saw pro brand passed the test, but their chaps fail to offer adequate protection because the system as a while was faulty. They’ve done nothing to change the product, and tried to claim the situation was the fault of the person setting up the scenario, when it was done under their supervision to their spec.

The test passing problem exposes workers in our and other industries to false security, believing that some label with numbers and letters means they’re protected. I stress to anyone I’m working with to take personal responsibility for their own safety, and to recognize that manufacturers are human, prone to mistakes and temptation. While I promote the proper use of PPE, I also believe the best safety is skill, good habits, and good teamwork. PPE is the last line of defense, and these days, subject to consumerism. I make it my responsibility to get to know the people making the tools I use. It takes work, but it is eye-opening!
Click to expand...

Legwork... I see what you did there...
 
For a gas saw, there's the hp torque driving the chain and the inertia of the crankshaft and clutch spinning.(yeah, and the chain in motion) With some leg work numbers could be put to that for different model saws. Then sprocket size could convert that to chain speed and gumption. (a tech word!) The same analysis, electric drive torque AT SPEED (dc or universal motors torque's progressively suck as rpm's increase) and motor's rotor inertia at speed - same old. But, the inertia and hence inertial energy in an electric saw might get serious if its gear reduced and not direct drive. Square of the gear ratio. And the other complicating/differentiating factor is that as you clog down a gas motor it's hp torque diminishes- as you clog down a dc motor it's torque increases. They both present straightforward inertial energies that can be connected to chain speed. Probably been an ok correlation so far because of relative sameness of optimized design and construction of 2 stroke gas saws across sizes and manufacturers.

With all that understood, it ought to be easy peasy to universalise the pants protection standard. Well, maybe not.
 
Shadowscape said:
Nice Clogger ad.
But back to the standards. How can you say, rated for electric chainsaw protection when there are no standards for electric chainsaws. The standards are based on chain speed? Legitimately any company that meets the standards for gas saw automatically meets the current standards for electric saws, whether it stops the saw or not. Goody two shoes for Clogger testing to see if it works on their gear. I would be very surprised if there was a major chainsaw protection company out there who hasn't done the same thing. And they all use the same plastic fibers, Polyester, Nylon, or Polyethylene (Engtex out of Sweden, Dyneema by a Dutch Co., and Avertic which most pants use). They each call the fibers by their own made-up name, just stuff it in different designs.
Under the current standards Clogger would be rated for nuclear powered chainsaws as well, as long as the chain speed remained under 2,750 feet per minute because they have shown that it stops a gas saw at that speed. There is nothing in the rules about what saw was used for the tests.
Now if they would change the standards to reflect the internal operations of the various saws, and testing was done, then a claim would be valid. But currently, it means squat.
Electric saws first need to be addressed by ANSI and OSHA and some standards written, then testing needs to be done to meet the new standards. Until that happens, anything stated by PPE companies is bullshit, because there are no standards other than chain speed.
Clogger has a good clothing design department. I give them credit for that. Beyond that they stuff their clothing with the same thing the rest of them do. Making a statement that their clothing was tested using electric chainsaws and it stopped the saws is fine. Saying it is rated is going a bit far because there are no such ratings.
I am not knocking Clogger. But let's call a duck, a duck.
Click to expand...

The clogger ad comment seemed a bit cheap. Up to that point I’ve enjoyed engaging with you and respect your content here. Let stay classy, eh?

The point is, people are concerned about battery saws and current saw pro. Clogger is letting those people know the results of their tests. Any smart business would do that. They heard the concerns, did the tests, and shared the results.

At risk of another ad, I happen to know the guys at Clogger are also vigilantly pursuing changes in the testing standards to give more realistic means of measuring product effectiveness.

I know there are other brands, and I’ve worn several. Heck, zeros aren’t even my favorite cut for climbing- too much restriction in the crotch for some maneuvers. However, I haven’t seen other brands doing what Clogger is doing in customer engagement as well as standards improvement. Why make standards harder to meet if you’re only trying to sell stuff?
 
Crimsonking said:
The clogger ad comment seemed a bit cheap. Up to that point I’ve enjoyed engaging with you and respect your content here. Let stay classy, eh?

The point is, people are concerned about battery saws and current saw pro. Clogger is letting those people know the results of their tests. Any smart business would do that. They heard the concerns, did the tests, and shared the results.

At risk of another ad, I happen to know the guys at Clogger are also vigilantly pursuing changes in the testing standards to give more realistic means of measuring product effectiveness.

I know there are other brands, and I’ve worn several. Heck, zeros aren’t even my favorite cut for climbing- too much restriction in the crotch for some maneuvers. However, I haven’t seen other brands doing what Clogger is doing in customer engagement as well as standards improvement. Why make standards harder to meet if you’re only trying to sell stuff?
Click to expand...
"Clogger Ad" was meant to be humorous, not as a cut. My apologies if it struck a nerve.
Forgive me.
Dave
 
I feel like there's a lot of overthinking on this issue. In my mind it's just about long stringy fibers tearing out of the pants and jamming up the drive sprocket and chain. I really don't see why all of the technical differences between gas or battery saws would change this simple dynamic. I don't have much education in mechanical workings, but all of this talk about clutch, crankshaft, torque, inertia, gear reduction, direct drive etc, seems superfluous. I don't know. To me it's just long stringy fibers jamming up a sprocket and chain. In other words, as long as the chain speed is below a given threshold, the pants should stop the saw regardless of what type of saw it is, which I think is what @Shadowscape was driving at. I'm more interested in the specifics of how they test this, i.e. are they simulating a saw winding down or is it being actively throttled, etc. I have some old pairs of pants I might run through some tests with.
 
Muggs said:
I feel like there's a lot of overthinking on this issue. In my mind it's just about long stringy fibers tearing out of the pants and jamming up the drive sprocket and chain. I really don't see why all of the technical differences between gas or battery saws would change this simple dynamic. I don't have much education in mechanical workings, but all of this talk about clutch, crankshaft, torque, inertia, gear reduction, direct drive etc, seems superfluous. I don't know. To me it's just long stringy fibers jamming up a sprocket and chain. In other words, as long as the chain speed is below a given threshold, the pants should stop the saw regardless of what type of saw it is, which I think is what @Shadowscape was driving at. I'm more interested in the specifics of how they test this, i.e. are they simulating a saw winding down or is it being actively throttled, etc. I have some old pairs of pants I might run through some tests with.
Click to expand...
You are correct. The standard is designed to protect against the hazard. The hazard is the spinning chain, no matter the driving force. Hence, the threshold chain speed ratings.

The testings I was familiar with were drop tests with the chain decelerating. Pass was cut through of no more than 1/4 inch.

That was some time ago. It may be different now.

Tony
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Kask Stihl NORTHEASTERN Arborists Wesspur TreeStuff.com Teufelberger Westminster X-Rigging Teufelberger
Back
Top Bottom