Branch Saver Installation Question

Thank goodness we finally see the spruce. I might spec 1 cable (3/8" EHS) installed just above the 'kiss' (about 8' up), secured with terminal fasteners. $65.00 in materials, 1/2 hour labor. Or, depending on the crown, maybe nothing. Prescribing all those rods is a ton of overkill.

"I thought that ALL artificial support systems require annual inspection per ANSI standards? " NO! This myth may be due to the ISA BMPs, which used to say 'annual' on one page and 'periodic' on another. :violent1:
'Periodic' has always been in ANSI. Annual would be milking the client in most cases, imo.
 
Man that is a big foreign object to drive through a tree. ANSI and ISA are way too quick to prescribe those imo.

They have their place, but only in big trees with big cracks. There, they are lifesavers!
 
Steel bracing to support trees has a rich and long history dating back to the days of William Wallace and the Clachan Oak, now held together with three steel bands, both holding it together, and choking the life out of it.
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    191.7 KB · Views: 32
How much tensile pull does a branch "saver" exert on the backside of the branch/trunk it's attached to guys?

100, 200 lbs of force after "proper" tensioning?

Why that two inch strap will embed itself into, and eventually become totally engulfed?

Is best illustrated by simply attach a 100 or 200 lb weight over a lateral leader of any tree species, and let it hang there for ten years.

If the girdling promoting experts are right, that strap'll be lifted by the force of the radial growth of new reaction wood.

However if I'm right, that strap will become completely engulfed after 10 years or less has passed.

Somebody's right, and somebody's wrong, dead wrong. There's no two ways about IME.

Even that 1800 era Winchester rifle simply left leaning against that cedar, was in the process of being entombed for goodness sakes!


Let me get this straight, you guys think replacing an age old proven steel support system, one that's fire proof, with a new synthetic support system that's highly flammable and disintegrates into a burning dripping source for spreading fire onto your client's roof, is going to be welcomed with open arms by the insurance industry, defended in a court of law?

After the PNW fires we had this year?

You guys are going down, and should've 20 years ago IMO.

You want dynamic support? Do it with with something non girdling and inflammable, like say steel maybe?

Jomo
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    158.9 KB · Views: 27
I think the flammability aspect of synthetic cable is irrelevant, unless the building near the tree is fireproof.
That girdling issue has some merit though.
I used to find the support straps on an SCBA (steel tanks, not composite) not entirely comfortable either.
 
You don't tension a dynamic system. It hangs with a slight belly, dependent on the cable length and tree situation.
 
Jomo said:
Steel bracing to support trees has a rich and long history dating back to the days of William Wallace and the Clachan Oak, now held together with three steel bands, both holding it together, and choking the life out of it.
Click to expand...

Looks like it needs some banding with stand-offs to give it a chance at a longer life. Some sections will suffer for the greater good, rather than the whole tree above the bands.
 
SouthSoundTree- said:
Looks like it needs some banding with stand-offs to give it a chance at a longer life. Some sections will suffer for the greater good, rather than the whole tree above the bands.
Click to expand...

http://www.historictreecare.com/761/ shows what to do with damaged bark from tying.

Stand-offs do way too much damage, as seen in this blog post. Steel cabling is a better solution than standoffs or bracing, or at least it would have been for the Kvill Oak.

http://www.historictreecare.com/europes-fattest-oak/
 
That's not a Branch Saver Rep, its Casey Selner, a working arb.

He said he tensions the tree to make the locking brummel splice with no tension on the rope. Around 4.50.

All he said was not to loose or too tight.
 
Yep..that train is blowing the horn, wailing the whistle and ringing the bell...hard to get thru all that.
 
treelooker said:
http://www.historictreecare.com/761/ shows what to do with damaged bark from tying.

Stand-offs do way too much damage, as seen in this blog post. Steel cabling is a better solution than standoffs or bracing, or at least it would have been for the Kvill Oak.

http://www.historictreecare.com/europes-fattest-oak/
Click to expand...

That's sorta what I meant. If it needs compression to keep it from blowing out somewhere, the support needs to connect differently. If there is more solid wood, the foot print would be smaller, if it needs to spread the pressure due to weak wood, some larger foot print would be needed. Are those threaded eye bolts? Cable tensioner, a turnbuckle?
 
Cabling's like getting married, it's a lifelong commitment.

Failing in that commitment, or entering into it under false pretenses?

Can cost you dearly...

Jomo
 
One question:
Does it matter to the dead horse whether you flog it again and again with a steel cable or a synthetic one?

We certainly ought to know that by now.
 
I gather you believe you can artificially support a tree without weakening it Stig?

How long you been at this again mate?

Jomo
 
b4bdb44c5ee2fe067c8adbe80166a2e2.jpg
 
Sean to be stationary I think those were eyebolts; could not get the specs. Way too big a footprint imo; cabling X in branches would have done it, crown not large. Then the tree was mulched to death...

"All he said was not to loose or too tight." which complies with ANSI A300. Jon, please shine your acumen in that committee, instead of casting your pearls of wisdom down here, ok? Seriously you belong there in that flock of dinosaurs.

That dead horse is not being flogged; it's being shagged, by a 3/4" steel rod. :\:
 
I know nothing about that tree in particular, Guy, or honestly much about veteran tree preservation beyond the basics. Was the tree banded or circle-cabled for lack of better technology, or is it necessary to hold a tree together sometimes in that way with compression all around?
 
treelooker said:
Sean to be stationary I think those were eyebolts; could not get the specs. Way too big a footprint imo; cabling X in branches would have done it, crown not large. Then the tree was mulched to death...

"All he said was not to loose or too tight." which complies with ANSI A300. Jon, please shine your acumen in that committee, instead of casting your pearls of wisdom down here, ok? Seriously you belong there in that flock of dinosaurs.

That dead horse is not being flogged; it's being shagged, by a 3/4" steel rod. :\:
Click to expand...

I'm all ears to hear your rationale for planting dynamic time bombs in client trees Guy?

Lay it on me how those PhD horticulturist mofo's are dead wrong, and the folks at Branch Saver aren't snake oil salesman lookin for marks?

Educate me Guy please, I'm beggin yu...

Jomo
 
Jomo said:
I gather you believe you can artificially support a tree without weakening it Stig?

How long you been at this again mate?

Jomo
Click to expand...

I have never and never will support a tree that can't hold it's own weight.

I'm primarily a logger. I kill weakened trees, I don't hand out crutches to them
 
Sean the tree was banded for lack of better technology--dozens still seen in Europe--, then replaced by worse technology. In countries with a heritage of chastity belts, they thought it necessary to hold a tree together in that way with compression all around.

I'm primarily an arborist. I have never and never will kill a tree that can't hold it's own weight. i'll make it weigh less, or support it. Another way to skin the cat. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
Revolutionary "new" tree climbing tool. Upgrade your tree game and on ground!
2 3
Replies
62
Views
10K
Burnham
Burnham
Back
Top