High Back Cut, Burnham Style!

I suppose if you kind of grew up around that gnarly chit used on the western slopes it wouldn't be big deal .I'll tell you that would drive me up a wall working in a tangled up mess like I've seen on TV .

It might not be that way .I've never seen a high line operation,in operation .
 
Burnham: I'm not familiar with your felling techniques, but, I know that I would have heaps to learn from you. I've still got one question: why wouldn't you use a gapped Humboldt to acquire stump-shot instead of that very high--difficult to wedge--back cut?
 
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #132
Sorry for the slow reply...still barely begun to recover from flu unlike any I've had the misfortune to be miserable with.

The gapped Humbolt certainly could be used to build a well-functioning hinge on a stump that encorporates stumpshot.

But it is my opinion that the Humbolt does a less than satisfactory job at stopping the tree from coming back over the stump should the tree not fall to a clear lay. This is because the angled face provides a ramp to assist the tree to climb back up and over the stumpshot. Not everyone would agree with me, but it's my opinion.

In reality, the gapped feature has little to do with stumpshot...that's about getting a hinge that functions for a longer period during the fall even though the actual degree of opening of the face is small, relatively.

I have to disagree with your characterization of the high back cut as difficult to wedge. If taken to extreme, sure, and if, like in the case of the subject of this thread, there are branch stubs buried in the hinge area, sure. But not normally, in my experience on this species and age of tree. You have to know your wood. I was not generalizing when I chose this path for this tree...don't make that mistake either.
 
How could you be sorry after an ordeal like that??!! Thank God you're better. Thanks a lot for the comprehensive response.
 
I guess I was understanding "stump shot" as being: any part of the stump that "backs-up" any part of the log during the fall. (Something tells me that right now you're thinking, "I've already responded to this question about a hundred and fifty times.")

It seems to me that a one inch gap knocked out of a Humboldt with an axe, (even with a perfectly level back cut) functions almost exactly the same as a one inch higher back-cut on the stump of a conventional. Then, once the log has tipped an appreciable amount, the Humboldt begins to become "stump shot" as defined above. Add to this the fact that we might still choose to raise the back cut, and of course, the advantage becomes even greater.

As to your "ramp" effect incurred when the falling log meets an obstruction (always another tree unless we are silly enough to fall a tree into a granite cliff): is not the "ramp" sawed into the log (conventional) far more detrimental from a safety perspective, than the "ramp" sawed into the stump? Has anyone ever seen an obstructed log shoot back over a Humboldt stump? (High ground doesn't count.) This seems to me far more likely to occur in a conventional setup than a Humboldt. (Bear in mind that we may equally decide to raise the back cut with either setup.)

I've already learned a lot, and really appreciate your threads, so, if you're more sick of the age-old (and never settled!) Humboldt/conventional argument than you are with the Flu, please don't bother. I'm an arborist/wanna-be commercial faller who, for some odd reason, has always been deeply curious about the cuts people use to drop trees and why, so, anything that you'd have to add would be much appreciated.
 
I tend to side with you Jed in thinking the the Humboldt keeps the slant cut below the hinge at all time whereas the conventional has the slanted cut above the hinge/stump shot for most of the fall.
 
Good reasoning there, Jed...this is a great discussion. It's been a good thread to focus on what is happening at the stump in the falling process. Y'all keep it going...you are doing a good job of keeping our resident FIN (f***ing internet expert) engaged. :D
 
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #137
inbredJed said:
I guess I was understanding "stump shot" as being: any part of the stump that "backs-up" any part of the log during the fall. (Something tells me that right now you're thinking, "I've already responded to this question about a hundred and fifty times.")

It seems to me that a one inch gap knocked out of a Humboldt with an axe, (even with a perfectly level back cut) functions almost exactly the same as a one inch higher back-cut on the stump of a conventional. Then, once the log has tipped an appreciable amount, the Humboldt begins to become "stump shot" as defined above. Add to this the fact that we might still choose to raise the back cut, and of course, the advantage becomes even greater.

As to your "ramp" effect incurred when the falling log meets an obstruction (always another tree unless we are silly enough to fall a tree into a granite cliff): is not the "ramp" sawed into the log (conventional) far more detrimental from a safety perspective, than the "ramp" sawed into the stump? Has anyone ever seen an obstructed log shoot back over a Humboldt stump? (High ground doesn't count.) This seems to me far more likely to occur in a conventional setup than a Humboldt. (Bear in mind that we may equally decide to raise the back cut with either setup.)

I've already learned a lot, and really appreciate your threads, so, if you're more sick of the age-old (and never settled!) Humboldt/conventional argument than you are with the Flu, please don't bother. I'm an arborist/wanna-be commercial faller who, for some odd reason, has always been deeply curious about the cuts people use to drop trees and why, so, anything that you'd have to add would be much appreciated.
Click to expand...

Jed, I did not mean to say that the gapped face does not produce stumpshot, rather that is not the reason for the gap. I agree with you that it does.

Chopping out a gapped face nice and clean sometimes is sweetly easy and sometimes not...unless I have a pretty compelling reason to push for a longer functioning, more flexible hinge that I cannot achieve by simply setting the back cut higher that the face apex, then I don't take on that potential extra effort. There are several paths we could follow to maximize hinge function, but usually we don't need to pull out all the stops on every tree. Same thing with producing stump shot. But that's my choice, maybe not for everyone.

Your question and point re the potential ramp on the end of the log that results from use of the conventional face is well-taken...not the first nor will it be the last time fallers have had honest disagreement over which way is better, or safer. I'll stick to my theory because I'd rather the part with the ramp NOT be the part that's fixed in position, i.e. the stump. I dunno...you are in plenty good company in disagreeing with me.

It behooves me to report that I just rather perform a conventional face, usually...I hate that roostertail of chips in my face that comes with the Humbolt :D. So I probably look for other "good" reasons to prefer it anyway ;).
 
Hey: Thanks a ton Burnham. Point taken: there's a lot to be said for good ol' ergonomic fluidity in this work. I can only imagine how hard you would have to work with the axe if you had tried to cut a gap into the face and that same Huckleberry-twig-included branch had been running through into it!

My foreman gets a really good laugh at me at times for taking the whole face cut business waaaay too seriously. He's got this disgusting method of hacking out any nasty, mismatched/stray-dutchman, bird-face he can manage; and then, for his back cut, he completely cuts off his near corner--just to ensure that the plane of the bar will match his far-from-level face--and then dogs all the way around to his far corner--which he also cuts off. It's hard for me to man-up and not cry. Finally, he whittles away the rest of the tension till the darn thing just falls over, but here's the crazy irony: his trees nearly always hit the lay. He's got some super intuitive gift for judging limb weight and gunning really well, acordingly; whereas, I'm so preoccupied with a pretty stump, (If my wife would let me, I'd hang framed pictures of Jerry's 2nd growth redwood faces from his Fundamentals book on our walls.) that I often miss some howler like tons of veer in the trunk or limb weight hanging way out to the left.

All this to say: thanks for the photos and well done sneaking that nasty snag into that tiny hole.
 
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #141
You are welcome, Jed.

As to the "success" your foreman generally enjoys...sounds like he's good at reading the head lean and gunning the tree to that lay. Heck, any beaver can get a tree to fall to the head lean. Something tells me he's probably not so good with taking the tree where it doesn't want to go.
 
Exactly..... we usually end up piecing everything down super small unless it's screaming toward the lay. I'll remember the beaver comment!
 
Nice to read posts like this and not have someone butt-hurt over a disagreement. You guys managed to represent the exact reason why the treehouse is far superior than the other sites. Thanks.
 
simplypete said:
Nice to read posts like this and not have someone butt-hurt over a disagreement. You guys managed to represent the exact reason why the treehouse is far superior than the other sites. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Double ditto!!!:thumbup:=D>
 
Burnham said:
As to the "success" your foreman generally enjoys...sounds like he's good at reading the head lean and gunning the tree to that lay. Heck, any beaver can get a tree to fall to the head lean. Something tells me he's probably not so good with taking the tree where it doesn't want to go.
Click to expand...

I remember when I was learning how to tie knots, one of the guys I worked with always used to say "a pretty knot is a good knot." I think this holds equally true with stumps. If your stump looks like crap when you're finished (face cut or back cut not level, hinge wood uneven, dutchman, cut corners, etc) then you simply aren't getting as good of directional control out of the hinge as you could have.
 
I'm under the impression that a high back cut and a thicker hinge is just what is needed with back leaning trees that are being pulled to the lay, at least with the Pines that I frequently use the method with. I can extrapolate that it would also be the case with a lot of hardwoods. Many hardwoods have more flexibility than softwoods, any text showing wood species properties will bear that out.
 
It is interesting that on page 30 in Figure 13 they show "The optimal shape of the felling hinge?"

It reminds me of a gutted hinge..it is tapered from both sides to the middle so that the strength is in the outside parts of the hinge. capisce?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

davidwyby
Tilting the back cut?
Replies
6
Views
786
gf beranek
gf beranek
Al Smith
Big cotton wood
Replies
3
Views
998
Jed
Jed
Unemployed
Unusual stumps
2
Replies
49
Views
2K
gf beranek
gf beranek
Benjo75
Span rigging advice needed
2 3
Replies
65
Views
6K
CurSedVoyce
CurSedVoyce
M
sharing a hotsaws 101 reply
Replies
14
Views
4K
Frankie
Frankie
Back
Top