High Back Cut, Burnham Style!

[Al Smith]

I think I get his drift on this thing .A tad longer or higher if you prefer would give the hinge a bit more flexability .

Now I have in the past drove wedges and lifted the damned things right off the stump instead of tipping them . That is when the feet get moving about a hundred miles an hour .

 

[woodworkingboy]

Felling trees is a fine art, can't get too good at it...that's why I like these threads too. If Jerry and Burnham could produce a brain implant with their knowledge and experience contained within, I'd have it installed.

 

[sotc]

Justin, I still do most of my back cuts level or up just a little. in residential, I find that i'm rarely falling "through" something so with an "open" face cut I just haven't had one come back over the stump

 

[squisher]

Yah I'm not worried at all about trees butts coming back at me in a residential setting, and honestly only sometimes in a bush setting. Mostly I'm long frigging gone past a safe or protecting type of obstacle. I don't mean to sound cocky. I always, always consider where my safe zones are no matter how easy the fell it's just ingrained in me to not be lazy, move to the safest position.

I'm asking those questions out of curiosity about hinge strength and how the height of the back cut affects the whole felling process/hinge. I finger the more fully I understand why I choose to do something one way or another the better and safer I'll be at it.

 

[sotc]

 

[stig]

Squisher, one thing that you or Burnham don't mention is that the height of backcut you can get away with varies from species to species.
If you did your: " Humboldt with flush backcut" on one of our beechtrees or even worse, an ash, you'd split the log 2 out of 3 times.
Particularly with European ash, which has geat tensile strength, but splits if you look at it in an unfriendly way, a high flexible hinge and an open face is important.
I know you are mostly working in conifers, where it is not so much of an issue, but since this is an international forum ( sort of!) I just had to add my 2 cents.

 

[sotc]

Velly intelesting.

 

[squisher]

Yes interesting point for sure. Although if you read back Burnham did mention that his remarks were based on this particular tree being a doug fir. I was the one who was probably muddying the waters as far as species was concerned.

 

[Cobleskill]

My father, who was an experienced woodsman, told me a story about cutting White Ash in the winter. He cut one and it split. He cut another and it split. He then cut the hinge about completely through on the rest of them and that worked. Probably being frozen solid was the reason.

He probably didn't know about an open face 40 or 50 years ago.

 

[wiley_p]

Burnham, I don't like the high backcut, and conventional face in your spot, cause if it hangs up, it's likely hung up well. I don't like getting under wood that size and walking a tree down. Without a driver tree nearby a guy could be hosed.
But then I remember you work on the road crew which means hanging up trees is fun cause you can play with fun binary agents.

 

[klimbinfool]

I rarely put a stump shot when doing residential work unless it's has a back lean or some funkiness to the stump. It's already down to a minimal size in (most) cases and theres no need.

 

[Al Smith]

I've got a big dead bitternut hickory to trip some time this fall .100 footer more or less .Not much room to finagle it without doing some damage to other trees .

A 1" rope and a 4 ton dozer for power I imagine I can lay it right where I want it .---or I'll be pizzed .

 

[SkwerI]

Al, the rope and dozer can pull it over, but can't aim or steer it. But you knew that.

 

[Al Smith]

I've got my gunning sticks for that aiming stuff .I don't miss too often but I won't tell a big fib and say I've never missed .

About the time it's 10 degrees into a fall and you suddenly realize you might have screwed up makes for a few very intense seconds .

 

[Stumper]

I felled an ugly one last evening. Of course I didn't remember my camera.....but I did think to snap a couple with my cell phone. Unfortunately I don't know how to get them onto the computer.

 

[Burnham]

Just thinking that I'm going along with your premise that a high back cut gives more flexibility to a hinge, therefore more time to move in the direction of the lay before breaking....but along the lines of my earlier rambling post, I think that a beefier hinge is better than a high back cut when pulling trees to the lay, assuming you have the power to mitigate it's strength to not want to bend. With wedges, it seems a somewhat different arrangement.

Certainly, the degree of back lean is a factor in all this, and in the tree in question's case, the back lean appears fairly minimal.

Not questioning your method here at all, Burham, just trying to add some variables for study. Personally, I'm still unclear on the dynamic differences when pulling vs wedging.
I seem to remember Jerry writing that he liked a thick hinge with a high back cut for back lean. I don't remember exactly in what context he was saying this.

One thing we need to keep in mind when we look to Jerry Beranek's work...when he speaks of pulling with a line, many times he's referring to use of heavy cable and big Cats. We probably should put wedges and pull lines manned by a couple of guys with 4:1 MA setups in one group and the equipment pulls in another, if we can split the characteristics at all. I'd like to hear Jer weigh in on the differences as he sees them.

 

[Burnham]

So aiming for a 2" backcut height(if WCB is coming out ) is more of a production falling guideline would you say? To minimize waste while still maintaining an acceptable safe level of stumpshot. And if so then in your opinion do you think it would be better to use a higher backcut most of the time in a residential setting?

I'm interested in your opinion on this Burnham as backcut height being to low is one of my most common errors. Not coming in under the face or anything but I was taught with a humboldt and a backcut that would basically fell a tree so the buckerman would have little to nothing to do with the butt. As close to even as possible without coming in under. When you have a good lay and favorable lean it's really easy to do. As things become more challenging or dangerous I move more to favoring the 2"s, but I've never been into really tall backcuts. Since doing residential work I always aim for about 2"s on my backcut.

I hear what you're saying about the flexing being a better term then strength. Although it would seem it translates, when paired with proper felling cuts, into a more effectve hinge then but shouldn't be any harder to wedge over. And in your opinion if anything it's easier to wedge over than a lower back cut?

Also I'm curious when you say 5" is sort of max height. What are your reasons for determining that max back cut height? I guess what I'm wondering is why after a certain point then does it become less efficient? And of course I'm wondering about these things as they concern a residential setting where generally a few inchs of wood is not a money or waste issue.

Again Burnham I'm just curious and appreciate the time and thought that you put into answering questions.

In a residential setting the likelyhood that you're going to be attempting to thread the needle and push a fell through a tight stand is nil, so stump shot is not really called for. On the other hand, a hinge that holds for a long time to give as accurate a fall to your lay as you can get is always good, so a relatively wide face and a moderate amount of offset between heights of the floor of the face and the back cut seems good. Your 2 inch number works for me, on conifers. I'd basically go for about 5-10% of the DBH...2 inches on a 20 incher would be plenty.

That same percentage figure is why I say 5 inches is about max. If you're falling a 100 incher, I'd say go a bit bigger than 5" . I just don't think you get any additional benefit when you go to a higher percentage for stump shot, and the odds that you'll get grain that doesn't run straight down without the uglies in there go up as you increase the distance between the two points, even in a straight grained Doug, let alone any of the other species we deal with.

 

[Burnham]

I think I get his drift on this thing .A tad longer or higher if you prefer would give the hinge a bit more flexability .

Now I have in the past drove wedges and lifted the damned things right off the stump instead of tipping them . That is when the feet get moving about a hundred miles an hour .

Al, quit using those steel splitting wedges for felling, ol' man!

A proper felling wedge with low angle taper will seldom do that, especially if you don't drive 'em with an 8 pound maul.

Give any tool time to do it's job...don't try to force it.

 

[Burnham]

Burnham, I don't like the high backcut, and conventional face in your spot, cause if it hangs up, it's likely hung up well. I don't like getting under wood that size and walking a tree down. Without a driver tree nearby a guy could be hosed.
But then I remember you work on the road crew which means hanging up trees is fun cause you can play with fun binary agents.

Point well taken, in your first para, Dave. Valid in all respects. But I'd rather have a hung tree than be dead. But that's just me .

In your second, nope, I don't work on a road crew, we have no such thing any more. I sometimes get to work with a contract piece of equipment at hand, but mostly it's me, myself, and I. And whatever I can rig with a 4x4 pickup and a Warn 12M winch.

 

[Al Smith]

Al, quit using those steel splitting wedges for felling, ol' man!

Oh I can't put one past you .You knew all along I was driving steel with an 8 pounder . Fact I didn't even own a regular skinny falling wedge up to maybe 5 years ago .Had a lot of splitters though .

 

[woodworkingboy]

I guess what is confusing me in this thread, is that a high back cut for stump shot, is also being cited as a method to give the hinge more time to work (I think). I understand the carry over, but my thinking is that stump shot, and the strength of the hinge, are really two different subjects that require separate thinking, due to the variables brought about by species, and how the back cut is being progressed. Even with a high back cut, it would seem that progressing the cut to the point where the hinge is getting cut up so fine, as in the first post, you are basically greatly reducing the holding qualities of the hinge. I understand that can work in your favor, too.

I guess to put it another way, it comes down to at what point do you stop cutting, and have the wedge able to do it's work, and also have the most favorable directional control possible from the hinge, that seems to be the main point of attention, also considering the trees situation and what is required. A high back cut puts an odd element into the mix.

 

[SkwerI]

I think for species that split fairly easily, the high back cut is more effective because the wood can split in a line straight down from the back cut. This leaves a nice long flap of wood to hinge over. For trees with a stronger grain (or more twisted grain), the wood is less likely to split down from the back cut and you may end up simply breaking off the wood instead of forming a hinge. I've had live oak hinges with the back cut 2"+ higher than the notch and they wouldn't hinge for shat. You end up cutting so far that your back cut overlaps the base of the notch and you end up with a very fancy snap cut.

 

[klimbinfool]

Burnham Nice job. That was cuttin up the hinge pretty fine there.

Exactly !!! Skwerl The higher the stump shot unless pulling, wedging, or have lean to your favor the finer you have to cut up the hinge or cut all the way through.

Heres a pic of a face cut if your not familiar, which helps compliment a higher back cut by holding it on the stump a little longer.Notice the gap at the back of the face.

 

[darkstar]

Thats sweet . Would take a min. longer but i like it .

 

[NeTree]

I think y'all are over-thinking the living crap out of this subject.