Crown support system ?

[ QUOTE ]
Guy, when you're thinking tensile strength req'd to restrain tree parts, think about all the large, mature trees you've seen in the woods completely uprooted, begging for the ground and yet held fast by a mere twig hung in a neighboring tree.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, that's why I use 900# Arbor-Tier for some applications...not sure which guy you mean; when movement will make the fork stronger, dynamic can be a good option, can't argue that.

for bradford's i've gone to aircraft cable and clamps.
mad.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
ds Not THAT far (exaggerated) if storms and ice loading and branch drop (like op mentioned) are common with high level targets involved.

gm targets have nothing to do with likelihood of failure--one thing at a time. Calling failure "very likely" without seeing the attachment remains undefendable; sorry.

[[[[Likelyhood of failure is only of significance in the eye of the client (ofcourse you may influence that to some degree) so sans target......we would not even be discussing this. This client deemed the likelyhood very high (a totally relative situation....if it could fail in a 20% range...that may be TOO high for this client to live with) therefore target does in fact reflect on likelyhood.]]]

ds That tree looks sparse no matter what species.

gm i wish i knew all species that well!

ds anytime you tax reserves defense suffers. that is a "stressor".

gm a small tax is normal--a mild stress. A heavy tax strains, and can cause systemic breakdown--see 1776...and 2020?
Does all your pruning cause reserve defenses to suffer? I don't think so.

ON SPARSE STRESSED TREES BEING PRUNED ENOUGH TO REDUCE LOAD ENOUGH TO BYPASS BRACING....YES IMHO IT DOES.

ds Tell me about "net photosynthesis"

gm total amount of sunlight harvested. It's not 1:1 with total leaf surface; see Coder etc.
2. It ain't the meat; it's the motion. It's the movement that gives it the Pop!,

ds you lost me on that one ole timer

gm okay, if you're not into jazz, old timer, to understand load better, see Jerry Bond's ceu piece in this month's AN

dinnertime!
grin.gif


[/ QUOTE ]
 
[ QUOTE ]
Holy smokes on that brace job xman. Truly a work of art, and on a tree without question, previously doomed to breach.

Great discussion going on here, just wish there were more experience with synthetics.

Guy, when you're thinking tensile strength req'd to restrain tree parts, think about all the large, mature trees you've seen in the woods completely uprooted, begging for the ground and yet held fast by a mere twig hung in a neighboring tree.

Seems a pity so many arborists choose overkill, with terribly inflexible systems installed for life, when the customer might opt for a friendlier solution given the choice, that could be easily replaced later. This of course, coming from one obsessively hunting (girdling) guys in saplings in any given shopping center parking lot on his way to any given destination.

Peace

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah Tobe it is unfortunate there is not more data on these elastic installations but that may reflect a truth. You hear of degradation, failure (recent post and many others I have read, squirrels chewing them up, etc) and it makes many take pause in trying them. I was at the week long Boone NC seminar Shigo put on in 95 when a fellow from Spain I think was hawking this for the first time. That is 16 years ago.

You wonder why the arb over supports perceived failure situations.....my question would be why one would be inclined to under (or choose the lesser) support a co or multi dom. What is to be gained? (reaction wood? a little more aesthetically pleasing movement) Why kind of support instead of completely support?

In the ANSI Std. as Guy and Tom pointed out (and I forgot....even had them underlined) elastic systems are gaining a little recognition. But let's consider the wording of 33.5.4...

".....and shall not girdle the tree". I cannot see how this system under extreme challenge does not do some damage by cell compression if it works in restraining by wrapping (girdling) the stem over half way around.

I have been in a bunch of these cabling threads about synthetic systems (that can last for weeks) and am not even going to feign hanging in this one for the distance as I am burried in work both in the field, on the desk, phone and shop.

Cheers everyone.
 
Understand the time restraints treevet, appreciate you keeping plugged-in for however long. I got lost on the "hawking" point and elastic language but respect your time in tree care. I, in no way claim the kind of field experience you guys enjoy and only pitch in here to bounce my limited knowledge on the matter. It's mostly gleaned from personal witness and fascination on the subject of tree support, so hereafter I'll opt out.

I personally feel the only legit argument against synthetic systems is the need to replace in 12-20 years. It's undeniable that there's deterioration. Same holds true with steel cable, and especially ends and anchors subjected to frequent thumping. Right Guy? I mean, the Mayor ...guy (go Heels)

Girdling is a much lessor concern, although possible to achieve if installed in a particular manner, e.g. too tight, no absorber and with too short anti-friction hose.

As for squirrel chewing, I believe no one would hear complaints earlier or louder than the importer. Since our first order of Cobra (in the early 90's), I've fielded 3 complaints, one early in 2000 by a squirrel that was... "not long for this world" after chewing the entire host maple top to bottom, and two last year by one installer in OH. Talk is still pretty cheap.

Your point about data is surprising. You should peek into the depth and amount of research by the likes of Wessoly, Brudi, Deiter and a host of others who have really obsessed over tree statics as it relates to dynamic cabling during past 30-years (pre-Cobra). In comparison, please site "the data" on static (wire) cabling born over 100 years ago. I understand the only "official study" was 1935.

Do synthetic and steel systems break? Yes. Can either/both be misinstalled? Yes. Does this make either/both of no value?

peace
 
Sooooo Toby, I hear some contentions that the elastic (where's the misunderstanding with this term?)system may be almost as good as the 100 year old static tried and true system (with maybe a few "glitches"). Some guys over the pond (maybe have some inside interests?)did some research on efficacy. But bottom line...

Why are we using this again? What are the advantages that drove the invention, manufacture and marketing of this system (predominantly profit?)? What does it give to the tree or tree owner or installer or protected target that the old system did not give? Bet there is a whole lot more profit for Sherrill Tree (I am a reg customer from your catalogue beginning) and others given the current value of metal.

Was it said this system can be installed and then when the tree gets "better" it can be removed?

I can see a temp support on a juvenile decurrent tree with minor weak co dom (why not put a couple of bolens on an old piece of climb line?) but if the fault is significant a mercy killing may be in order.

I have my own opinions on what it does not give and issues it may cause. I have probably installed well over 2k cables over 40 plus years.

ps...afterthought.....and "hawking" means (to me anyway) selling something in an unexpected place without being approved or desired (which is what was going on). Don't think Al cared for it either.
 
Elastic isn't a word that has been accepted or used in the discussion of bracing and cabling. Using standard terms makes the conversation easier.

Why is profit a bad word?

There are many compelling reasons to use dynamic cabling instead of static cabling. There is plenty of literature available to make this point too.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Elastic isn't a word that has been accepted or used in the discussion of bracing and cabling. Using standard terms makes the conversation easier.

XXXXXXInteresting the word "elastic" (Webster's.... returning or capable of returning to an initial form after deformation,... flexible, stretchable) always offends advocates. Isn't this the impetus for this system?XXXXXX

Why is profit a bad word?

XXXXXXCertainly not a bad word but if it is the primary motive that transcends necessity (necessity IS the mom of invention isn't it) then the "Emperor's Clothing" comes to mind.XXXXXX


There are many compelling reasons to use dynamic cabling instead of static cabling. There is plenty of literature available to make this point too.

[/ QUOTE ]

XXXXXXLet's talk bout some of em then. Number one is lack of invasiveness to get you started but after that (and no links pls) what else is compelling?.XXXXXX
 
Ugh, reread my post and it sounds ...almost angry. What's with that? It's like listening to a recording of yourself. Wasn't meant so at all.

TV - I've simply not heard the term "elastic" applied to synthetic or steels systems before, although both can be made "dynamic." Cobra (and select other synthetics) exhibit recoverable elongation but it's more like a fireman's catch blanket then, say, a trampoline. ...Although, with that said, when put in the break machine and taken to 50% tensile Cobra stretches like nobody's business.

Fun fact- highest recorded cable load in a tree - 900 lbs. by Dr. Ken James of Australia. Average? <200 lbs.

"Talk is still pretty cheap" comment was referring to the amazing phenomenon of fiction becoming fact, i.e. squirrel chewing; cable removed when tree gets better; cables needing to be installed slack; etc. I wasn't aiming at the messenger there, just marveling at the mystery of communication.

You certainly have a point about (and I'll say it) FINANCIAL interests. I do, but dare say anymore than an arborist recommending options that, i would hope some customers come to appreciate.

Okay, off to look into the cheese coney business. Wondering how it stacks up to Grits-on-a-Stick? Just kidding, doesn't exist. yet
 
Tobe, yes, fasteners that get thumped do need inspection, but I am really liking those wedgegrips.

Dynamic is preferable when movement mitigates stability, and not when movement aggravates stability. Pretty simple, to my simple mind.

I've seen a lot of cable failures lately, both kinds, page 30 http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/9cadda7d#/9cadda7d/8 but all had major design flaws. By reading and following standards and other sources like Sherrill's catalogue, this work can be done by any climber who wants to use more than a saw. The directions I believe for all call for taut, not slack.

O and root for the heels all you want; I'm looking for Duke to shoot straight next time they meet.
 
Successful cables were put in for decades and decades prior to any Sherrill Catalogues or esp any standards Guyzer..

Cables are gonna bang when winds blow the opp direction then recoil, you just gotta overengineer them. Ask an old pro that is highly proficient in them. That is where the test of time and observation has become closer to scientific data.
 
FWIW... I've installed and inspected hundreds of lines of Gaurdian dynamic and have come to believe that it is a top food source for squirrels in the Twin Cities metro! I think dynamics are good when there are targets below and tree has fairly stable unions. Advise buying a bb gun for the squirrels though.
 
...sorry for being one of those guys, who post, without reading the whole thread. Just got in, and promised to stop working soon, so I'll read the new posts later.
laugh.gif


Just did this cable job today....
An old beech with a lot of included bark between the 3 stems. I think it is a good example of a tree, that needs support, but isn't actual falling apart.

Enjoy your weekend!!!
applaudit.gif
 

Attachments

  • 271130-cobra_small.webp
    271130-cobra_small.webp
    284.8 KB · Views: 52
with just looking at that picture, the diameters where you have the syth cables looks very large, it seems like it would indicate that there is a lot more height above those cable positions.

i know pictures can be deceiving. Is that placement really 2/3 of the way to the top, from those crotches?

thanks for posting pictures, i like viewing them.
 
[ QUOTE ]
with just looking at that picture, the diameters where you have the syth cables looks very large, it seems like it would indicate that there is a lot more height above those cable positions.

i know pictures can be deceiving. Is that placement really 2/3 of the way to the top, from those crotches?

thanks for posting pictures, i like viewing them.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are right, X-man. We had to place the cables a little lower than 2/3, but not a lot. Two of the stems divided in to very small branches, with no good points of attachment. But, the problem with the included bark where the three main stems divide, is around a meter above ground, so we are close to 2/3 up. See image...
 

Attachments

  • 271244-PA153008_small.webp
    271244-PA153008_small.webp
    126.2 KB · Views: 43
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom