flushcut
TreeHouser
I will usually do a stage two if I am not grinding like Cory said about chain sharpness.
Logging pics
- Thread starter dstimber
- Start date
- Replies 321
- Views 51K
MasterBlaster
Administrator Emeritus
I just prefer getting it done all at once, when I can.
Mick!
TreeHouser
I’m guessing you’re maximising the useable milling wood.
MasterBlaster
Administrator Emeritus
Me? Nah, I'm just alaping the beeyotch.
pete mctree
Treehouser
Awesome to read you again Dan - nice felling too as per usual 
Thanks for the comments guys. Definitely got to be low for commercial felling but can see the advantages of cutting high in a domestic/urban setting. The swept grain from the buttresses can cause hinges to run or shear real easy on shorter grained species when cutting low though.
Pete- good to post again too mate, as for the felling, got to be lucky some days!
Pete- good to post again too mate, as for the felling, got to be lucky some days!
Jed
TreeHouser
Low stumps are always better. 
Burnham
Woods walker
No they are not, Jed, and you know it.
Hazard tree felling, when the faller wants to be able to get away from the nasty deteriorated bastard as fast and nimbly as possible...smart move is to cut standing straight up, so you can most easily rabbit out of there at the first sign that things are getting too sketchy. Much easier to keep one eye on what the top is doing from an upright position as well.
Now I know that 8 out of 10 of every tree I have ever felled was in this category to some degree or another, per my job description, so maybe I'm hyper-aware of this...but I'll bet any of you folks in the arb scene understand it, too.
Hazard tree felling, when the faller wants to be able to get away from the nasty deteriorated bastard as fast and nimbly as possible...smart move is to cut standing straight up, so you can most easily rabbit out of there at the first sign that things are getting too sketchy. Much easier to keep one eye on what the top is doing from an upright position as well.
Now I know that 8 out of 10 of every tree I have ever felled was in this category to some degree or another, per my job description, so maybe I'm hyper-aware of this...but I'll bet any of you folks in the arb scene understand it, too.
Jed
TreeHouser
.... Yet another one of the Ten Thousand things that I don't think of when I drink copious ammounts of beer and shoot my mouth off around here.
Burnham
Woods walker
Jed, my friend.
CurSedVoyce
California Hillbilly
Marc-Antoine
TreeHouser
That makes sense.
Wedging at hip hight is more difficult tough.
Wedging at hip hight is more difficult tough.
Jed
TreeHouser
With an avatar like that, you're allowed to shoot your mouth off all you want
Butch's work. Did that guy have my nuber or what.
Graeme McMahon
Treehouser
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2017
- Messages
- 58
Jed
TreeHouser
From a practical standpoint though, ceterus parabus, and other things being equal, I still have to maintain that very low stumps are (ok almost always) better. I mean when the safety considerations that B, and Stig have put forth are not the main consideration, and, we are also not taking ergonomic issues into account. I'm just talking about the practical considerations of steering the tree into the lay in the best way possible; and I'm suggesting that the lowest stump is always the best one.
I know that August Hunnike has said, "Conventional wisdom dictates that to come up the stem further generally means to get into straighter wood-grain which is always better for getting a tree to hit a lay."... but this is untrue. Now, I know that a bunch of guys are going to come after me here. They will say that to have twisting wood-grain in the hinge means to have a weaker and directionally inferior hinge, because the twisted grain has much less compression strength, and tends to "mush-out," much more easily, or be more prone to torsion failure. While this is true, folks who rely on this as the main rule for how high up to cut the tree are failing to see the bigger picture.
Let's think about the nature of buttress flare wood for a moment. It generally doesn't even happen in a tree's development untill that tree begins to approach maturity. Think about what it's like to go into a patch of regen fir, or to see any young tree at all for that matter. There are no "buttress roots," just perfectly straight up and down wood grain till the tree hits the dirt. And this continues to be the case untill the tree becomes rather advanced in age, when the amount of twisted wood-grain vs. vertical wood-grain finally becomes appreciable. My point is that an old tree (with lots of buttress flare) cut low, still retains EXACTLY THE SAME AMMOUT OF VERTICAL WOOD GRAIN as the same stem cut higher up would, BUT WITH THE ADDED BENNEFIT THAT THE FLARE WOOD PROVIDES A TON MORE STUMP-HOLDING POWER than the same hinge would have had if cut higher up out of the flare. And this is always the case unless a guy is jackass enough to only make his hinge about 20% into the tree, or something like that. If he has sense enough to cut at least 30% to 50% in (I'm talking about a tree that is growing perfectly plum with even foliage distribution on a nearly windless day)... he'll get into every bit as much vertical grain as the higher up stem wood would exhibit, except with the added benefit of the stump-holding power that the twisty wood provides.
Someone will say that we are still better off to cut up out of the flare so that our wedges are less prone to plit-out wood, but this also is rather silly to me, and, I think, stems from laziness and a desire to be away from the flare, so that the dogs will work better. (As opposed to trying to cut a humboldt in the flare where the dogs can be more of a hinderance than a help.)
When you wedge in flare-wood, and the wood splits out, you can very easily just trim off the busted wood on the top of the wedge with a sharp axe, and just continue to drive deeper. At worst the flare wood becomes trimmed off till it is the same diameter as the stem would have been higher up, and at best (when you're packing plenty of wedges to distribute the compression better) you are affording much more working distance between wedge-tip and saw chain. More better every time down low untill safety and ergonomics become prohibitive in my opinion.
While the old-timers had EVERY GOOD REASON to cut well up out of the flare (MISERY WHIPS REMEMBER!!!
) to rely on the same excuse with a power saw (remember, I'm excluding hazard-falling situations) is in my opinion just pure laziness.
I know that August Hunnike has said, "Conventional wisdom dictates that to come up the stem further generally means to get into straighter wood-grain which is always better for getting a tree to hit a lay."... but this is untrue. Now, I know that a bunch of guys are going to come after me here. They will say that to have twisting wood-grain in the hinge means to have a weaker and directionally inferior hinge, because the twisted grain has much less compression strength, and tends to "mush-out," much more easily, or be more prone to torsion failure. While this is true, folks who rely on this as the main rule for how high up to cut the tree are failing to see the bigger picture.
Let's think about the nature of buttress flare wood for a moment. It generally doesn't even happen in a tree's development untill that tree begins to approach maturity. Think about what it's like to go into a patch of regen fir, or to see any young tree at all for that matter. There are no "buttress roots," just perfectly straight up and down wood grain till the tree hits the dirt. And this continues to be the case untill the tree becomes rather advanced in age, when the amount of twisted wood-grain vs. vertical wood-grain finally becomes appreciable. My point is that an old tree (with lots of buttress flare) cut low, still retains EXACTLY THE SAME AMMOUT OF VERTICAL WOOD GRAIN as the same stem cut higher up would, BUT WITH THE ADDED BENNEFIT THAT THE FLARE WOOD PROVIDES A TON MORE STUMP-HOLDING POWER than the same hinge would have had if cut higher up out of the flare. And this is always the case unless a guy is jackass enough to only make his hinge about 20% into the tree, or something like that. If he has sense enough to cut at least 30% to 50% in (I'm talking about a tree that is growing perfectly plum with even foliage distribution on a nearly windless day)... he'll get into every bit as much vertical grain as the higher up stem wood would exhibit, except with the added benefit of the stump-holding power that the twisty wood provides.
Someone will say that we are still better off to cut up out of the flare so that our wedges are less prone to plit-out wood, but this also is rather silly to me, and, I think, stems from laziness and a desire to be away from the flare, so that the dogs will work better. (As opposed to trying to cut a humboldt in the flare where the dogs can be more of a hinderance than a help.)
When you wedge in flare-wood, and the wood splits out, you can very easily just trim off the busted wood on the top of the wedge with a sharp axe, and just continue to drive deeper. At worst the flare wood becomes trimmed off till it is the same diameter as the stem would have been higher up, and at best (when you're packing plenty of wedges to distribute the compression better) you are affording much more working distance between wedge-tip and saw chain. More better every time down low untill safety and ergonomics become prohibitive in my opinion.
While the old-timers had EVERY GOOD REASON to cut well up out of the flare (MISERY WHIPS REMEMBER!!!
) to rely on the same excuse with a power saw (remember, I'm excluding hazard-falling situations) is in my opinion just pure laziness.
SeanKroll
Treehouser
Root Disease?
Hardwoods with hollow stems? Lack of rocks and other crap in the cut zone? Arborist setting with no concern of log length maximizing or the like? I'm not even in your league, but these are all considerations in my neck of the woods.
Burnham
Woods walker
Bullshit, Jed. Just plain bare-assed bullshit. You are incorrect imltho, on every single point of your last post.
Jed
TreeHouser
Sean/Kyle: Sure. But those things are all what my, "other things being equal," proviso was supposed to eliminate.
Burnham: Well now... that is a real difference of opinion, and rather manfully expressed. And yet it smacks more of the argumentum ad baculum than the more cogent refutations that we have all come to respect from you. Care to redress the matter? Of course, if it's not worth your energy, I completely understand. Life is short.
Burnham: Well now... that is a real difference of opinion, and rather manfully expressed. And yet it smacks more of the argumentum ad baculum than the more cogent refutations that we have all come to respect from you. Care to redress the matter? Of course, if it's not worth your energy, I completely understand. Life is short.
MasterBlaster
Administrator Emeritus
Feller fight!!! 
Burnham
Woods walker
.
SeanKroll
Treehouser
When landscrapers plant them 6" too deep, it takes a long time for buttress roots to show.
