High Back Cut, Burnham Style!

[CurSedVoyce]

Or the epic stick in the hinge .. beat the heck out of the wedges.. then finally.....

 

[Burnham]

Yeah...there's a thread around here where that came up, somewhere...

 

[Burnham]

You know, I was just doing a little playing with the numbers...if you have a tree 100 feet tall, leaning at 10 degrees, the top of the tree is going to be about 17 feet offset from the base. Does that seem right? That's a long way to move a top .

 

[CurSedVoyce]

Damn straight. That much weight out 17 feet I would be hard pressed to even pull it into the lay it there was a critical target. Always afraid I would break the hinge doing it. But I am rather new to the game and I guess guys do it all the time with wedges, rope and jacks....

 

[Burnham]

I don't know about all the time, but I can say for certain that it can be done. Not without effort, that's for sure.

 

[klimbinfool]

yep! I have done close to that, but not without making the back of the face thick and pulling it over. Never would have attempted with wedges. Always a little scary until it comes over center. I would never attempt it with certain trees , but Black Oaks, some pondos, and Gray Pines you can get away with the hinge to hold true for the most part. It also depends on how high your purchase is set. Not into doing those if I cant help it..

Greg

 

[CurSedVoyce]

Grey pine is so stringy if it has not been long dead, I can see that. Pondos up here on a good rain year. Those ring true for me here too Greg. Depends a lot on weight distribution too...

 

[woodworkingboy]

There is also the 1:1 rule, where a trunk diameter of 12", (measured up to front of hinge) will get 1" of crown forward movement per foot of tree height, for every 1" thickness of wedge. As the diameter increases, the amount of lift decreases. The exact formula to figure the amount of lift is WL x H divided by D = CD.

WL = Wedge lift (thickness)
H = Tree height in inches
D = Tree diameter up to front of hinge
CD = Crown displacement

The catch is knowing the tree height, and if the wood is spongy and indents over the hinge, a margin of error creeps into the formula.

 

[klimbinfool]

True that..Stephen...

Grey pine is so stringy if it has not been long dead, I can see that. Pondos up here on a good rain year. Those ring true for me here too Greg. Depends a lot on weight distribution too...

 

[Jed]

This thread is so over my head, it's scary!

 

[CurSedVoyce]

Then you are making your cuts too high

 

[Jed]

Verrrry funny CurSedVoyce.

Burnham: Thanks so much for your longish post on P. 19. Really, really good, illuminating stuff for a res. arbo. type. You and Stig would laugh at the thought of my thinking that I knew everything there was to know about the wedging procedure, and yet never even having heard about your P. 19 dissertation. Brilliant stuff--for me. My little hero worship problem prevents me from believing that a procedure ever could be beneficial if it isn't in Gerry's big, green Fundamentals book.

You'll perhaps forgive me if said hero worship problem also causes me to take issue with--a bit impudently, I'll confess--one of the things you mentioned. You said, "You can deepen your face cut to something over 1/3 of the tree diameter, shifting the center of balance over a smidge." (Now imagine in your head the whining mockery in a ten-year-old boy's voice pleading, "Nu-uhh. That's not what Jerry said. That's not what Jerry said.)

With all due respect, dear Burnham: That's not what Jerry said.

Here's the thing: If a tree has even 1 degree of back lean, then doesn't that necessarily decree that the wood on the side of the face cut is--albeit to a very minor degree--in tension? And doesn't that necessarily decree that even a bar-deep face cut on that will increase the tension all the more on the wood in the back of the face cut? So.... Is it not impossible to "shift the lean" to any degree whatsoever when we are dealing with back-leaning trees? I thought that this applied only to relatively straight-standing trees. (All this is assuming that we are dealing with the average North American forest tree and not some aberrant, fat-butted, short-stemmed monster of Stig's suggestion, which could make the ratio-thingy change up a bit. "Ratio-thingy" is the most technical an inbred guy can get.)

I might hazard one more question--provided that you're not already too irritated with a wanna-be faller who has maaayyybee wedged over (with no rope) 15 trees in his entire life. Have you ever seen the youtube clips from a NorCal faller called hotsaws? He's got the--now made famous by Willie--"soft-dutchman" videos, etc. Anyway, he says--somewhere in his running commentary on what he's doing--that it is always advantageous, when "wedgin' like [hydraulic] jackin'"--to saw in the back cut first. (Of course, followed-up immediately by snugged-up wedges)

Have you ever used this? Does it work? Seems like it would be hard to get a sufficiently deep face--for directional control--in. I can immediately see the possible advantage, but I'm scared. Jerry merely mentions that the technique exists, but really doesn't seem to have much to say in favor of it. Do you? Or should I just leave you guys alone and pull it with the boss's GRCS?

 

[stig]

I've never encountered set-back when making the face cut.
But then I don't make my face cuts near as deep as you provincial tree fallers on the other side of the Atlantic ocean do.
Burnham and Willie constantly ribs me about that BTW.

I can't speak for Burnham, but I enjoy that you are so interested in the tecnical side of tree falling, since it is my interest as well and it makes for some interesting discussions here.

As for Jerry's Fundamentals, It has been a trusted companion of mine for years.

Danish fallers are a pretty provinsial bunch , too. They don't look over the fence for new tecniques.
What was good enough for their grandpas is good enough for them.

So when I bought "Fundamentals" during a stay in California and started implementing stuff from it into my work, it gave me a huge advantage over the competition.

I know this will be hard for you to credit, but I only know of maybe 4 Danish fallers who know and use the step dutchman.
And that is because I taught them.

 

[sotc]

Burnham and Willie constantly ribs me about that BTW.

.

They are so Murphyesque, except you were doing it before he, does that make him Stigish?

 

[woodworkingboy]

I've used the step dutcman, the video was impressive, I thought. It was about the third try where I actually noticed the tree swung a little.

 

[Jed]

Stig: That's not "hard for me to credit" at all. I have only MET THREE COMMERCIAL FALLERS IN MY ENTIRE LIFE!!!

[Willie: I'm talking about: 1) Jerry at Flipfest. 2) Max Evans 3) Max's buddy--now out of work--we ran into while buying tree stakes in Home Depo]

 

[sotc]

Max Adams?

 

[Burnham]

Verrrry funny CurSedVoyce.

Burnham: Thanks so much for your longish post on P. 19. Really, really good, illuminating stuff for a res. arbo. type. You and Stig would laugh at the thought of my thinking that I knew everything there was to know about the wedging procedure, and yet never even having heard about your P. 19 dissertation. Brilliant stuff--for me. My little hero worship problem prevents me from believing that a procedure ever could be beneficial if it isn't in Gerry's big, green Fundamentals book.

You'll perhaps forgive me if said hero worship problem also causes me to take issue with--a bit impudently, I'll confess--one of the things you mentioned. You said, "You can deepen your face cut to something over 1/3 of the tree diameter, shifting the center of balance over a smidge." (Now imagine in your head the whining mockery in a ten-year-old boy's voice pleading, "Nu-uhh. That's not what Jerry said. That's not what Jerry said.)

With all due respect, dear Burnham: That's not what Jerry said.

Here's the thing: If a tree has even 1 degree of back lean, then doesn't that necessarily decree that the wood on the side of the face cut is--albeit to a very minor degree--in tension? And doesn't that necessarily decree that even a bar-deep face cut on that will increase the tension all the more on the wood in the back of the face cut? So.... Is it not impossible to "shift the lean" to any degree whatsoever when we are dealing with back-leaning trees? I thought that this applied only to relatively straight-standing trees. (All this is assuming that we are dealing with the average North American forest tree and not some aberrant, fat-butted, short-stemmed monster of Stig's suggestion, which could make the ratio-thingy change up a bit. "Ratio-thingy" is the most technical an inbred guy can get.)

I might hazard one more question--provided that you're not already too irritated with a wanna-be faller who has maaayyybee wedged over (with no rope) 15 trees in his entire life. Have you ever seen the youtube clips from a NorCal faller called hotsaws? He's got the--now made famous by Willie--"soft-dutchman" videos, etc. Anyway, he says--somewhere in his running commentary on what he's doing--that it is always advantageous, when "wedgin' like [hydraulic] jackin'"--to saw in the back cut first. (Of course, followed-up immediately by snugged-up wedges)

Have you ever used this? Does it work? Seems like it would be hard to get a sufficiently deep face--for directional control--in. I can immediately see the possible advantage, but I'm scared. Jerry merely mentions that the technique exists, but really doesn't seem to have much to say in favor of it. Do you? Or should I just leave you guys alone and pull it with the boss's GRCS?

First question: you misunderstand me, Jed. I'm not suggesting that there is any way to, as you put it, "shift the lean". Rather, by locating the hinge a little further back towards the tree's COB, you make it a little bit easier to tip it to the face because you don't have to move the top quite so far forward before the weight shift goes to your favor.

Second question: I am familiar with hotsaws vids and am impressed with his work. He is a far better faller than I in deploying what I have called "gimmick" felling techniques. No, I don't use the technique of putting in the back cut first...but I see no reason that it would be difficult to put in a sufficient face if the back cut is held by wedges placed properly. The wedges serve the same purpose as the aft portion of the diameter of the tree if un-cut...either wood fiber or wedge, in compression, hold the tree from shifting further aft as the face cut is made.

Always happy to do my best to answer questions, Jed. Just don't go too overboard on the hero worship thing, brother . I'm just a flesh and blood man, able to screw up a fell as well as the next man.

 

[CurSedVoyce]

And a humble man to boot..

 

[Peter]

Anyway, he says--somewhere in his running commentary on what he's doing--that it is always advantageous, when "wedgin' like [hydraulic] jackin'"--to saw in the back cut first. (Of course, followed-up immediately by snugged-up wedges)

Have you ever used this? Does it work? Seems like it would be hard to get a sufficiently deep face--for directional control--in. I can immediately see the possible advantage, but I'm scared. Jerry merely mentions that the technique exists, but really doesn't seem to have much to say in favor of it. Do you? Or should I just leave you guys alone and pull it with the boss's GRCS?

I know you asked Burnham, but if you don't mind me adding 2 cents worth;

I wouldn't consider using that method until you are 100% confident of putting a perfect face in first time every time. With the conventional sequence of cuts, there is a margin for error, if you mismatch the face cuts you can readjust until you are happy. With making the backcut first, then cutting the face right up to a pre-formed hinge, you only really have one chance to get it right. Bearing in mind that you will only ever be doing this on nasty backleaners, is it worth the risk?

 

[Tucker943]

Speaking of catapulting trees over. I messed up about 3 months ago. I got the bid to put a large hemlock on the ground. It was a twin, each side went its own way about 2 feet off the ground. I let one side fly right into a horse pasture as tht is where it was naturally headed. The opposite side headed away from the pasture with a rather expensive fence about 4 feet away. So, I decided I would set a rope up top and pull it against its lean and lay it right on top of the other. About this time I gained an audience of 15 people. I lost my nerve. I really did. I am not crazy over audiences. One or 2 folks doesnt bother me, nor do coworkers or employees. But when all the neighbors gather round at a time when i m making a critical move, it screws with me. Its just one of my flaws I guess.
Anyhow, I set up a block and tackle on the rope that was tied high in this hemlock with backlean. Losing my focus caused me to question my own judgement and that is NOT good. I had 2 guys tighten the living hell out of that rope on that block and tackle. As I came through the back cut that tree burst off the stump and flew like an eagle in the intended direction.

Now, we all know that to the untrained eye that looked beautiful and precise. But I was embarrassed deep down. Too much force. All that force robbed me of precision and control. I took that lesson to heart. 2 lessons really. 1. Nevermind the audience, they dont matter and theres no reason to overcompensate just because they are there. 2. Never again pre-load the hell out of something the way i did. Steady pressure, with increase as needed as I make my way thru the cut. I knew the second lesson, but went against it.

 

[squisher]

I know you asked Burnham, but if you don't mind me adding 2 cents worth;

I wouldn't consider using that method until you are 100% confident of putting a perfect face in first time every time. With the conventional sequence of cuts, there is a margin for error, if you mismatch the face cuts you can readjust until you are happy. With making the backcut first, then cutting the face right up to a pre-formed hinge, you only really have one chance to get it right. Bearing in mind that you will only ever be doing this on nasty backleaners, is it worth the risk?

I'm not following you 100%. Why wouldn't/couldn't you touch your face up or re-cut it or whatever you want to do.

Many many times I've used this on smaller backleaners. Trees that are small enough that getting wedges in as you're making your back cut will be pretty much impossible before you're pinched. So back cut, tap wedge in, face cut, then pound the wedge or wedges to bring it over. I could spend oodles of timing shaping the face up to whatever I want it to be, but I'm pretty much a jedi and don't often have to re-cut a face. Lol.

I'm guessing you mean just in being able to get it squared up properly without cutting away the hinge by accident. I would agree it's not really a beginners move, but a competent sawyer should be able to line it up no problemo.

 

[Peter]

Making a single cut (backcut) to line up with a face and leave a perfect hinge is relatively straightforward. Making 2 intersecting cuts to do the same thing, especially in the light of another thread titled "how do you line up a diagonal", is more tricky, and if you overcut there is no margin for error. An overcut when placing the face cuts first just means a slightly deeper face than intended, rather than a disaster.

I suppose you could compromise by making a deep enough backcut to set the wedges, then putting the face in, then finishing the backcut, but I can't see an advantage over the conventional sequence of cuts, boring behind the hinge and setting wedges as you go.

 

[SkwerI]

It's not that difficult to err on the side of caution, even if it means making the notch too small and then whittling away at it until it's the right size and lined up with the back cut.

 

[squisher]

I hear the concerns but I'm telling ya anyone who's a decent faller won't have any issue doing it the way I described. I've done it more times than I can count, I like having the wedge straight in the back.

Honestly anyone who consistently has trouble lining up their face cuts, really needs more practice/instruction and should stick to the basics of basics until they're more competent.