Logging pics
- Thread starter dstimber
- Start date
- Replies 321
- Views 51K
Burnham
Woods walker
Ok, Jed, my friend. Here's my try at it. The bold is my attempt at addressing some of your points, which are still BS, far as I'm concerned 
.
Welcome your comments always, and look forward to your reply, if you wish.
.Welcome your comments always, and look forward to your reply, if you wish.
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. Frankly, you lost my interest in your opinion right here. I'll get into it in a bit, but here is the crux of your mistaken position, aka bullshit as I called it a bit impertinently, I'll admit. 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, This makes no sense to me, and I've been tending to the growth and development of western conifers for nearly as long as you've been alive. No sense at all. Nothing in my experience of hundreds of stump forensics analysis supports this assertion. 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. Ok, assuming there is more stump holding power in the root flare/low to the ground zone (not something I'm sure I agree with in totality, as a clear definition of "stump holding power" eludes me without more explanation from you...if it does indeed be the case, then it is also clear to me that convoluted grain that varies widely all around the position you posit would be the best place to set your hinge will NOT exert equal hold and pull on the outer ends of the hinge...which means that hinge will fail to exert equal holding on the ends of the hinge, where the most control the hinge exerts is located...which means it's likelier than not that the tree will not hit the intended lay.
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.) Any sawyer worth the name can make perfect use of the dogs, no matter if the surface is uneven...sheeeit boy, grow up.
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. Yup, that's me...lazy to the bone
Jed
TreeHouser
Not THAT'S what I'm talkin about!!! A good, solid refutation!
Yeah... ok, the "laziness," point is a bit weak since we (all sensible folk, anyway) tend to do what's most expedient in a given situation. I concede.
I still have an axe to grind about the "greater 'stump-holding' power," of the low cut, though. Let me get some ice cream while I think about this a sec.
O.k. foget the ice cream for now, I'm just gonna keep it real: Last week, I missed my shot terribly on a quite tall Big Leaf Maple stem. (Burnham, isn't it funny that the whole time we are having this conversation, we are only pictureing nice big Firs in our heads.
) Anyways... as I was saying I missed my shot, and badly goofed up the neighbor's Cedar. (which he ended up not caring about at all )
So anyways... back to the stem. This maple was in decline pretty bad (a good faller probably wouldn't even have fallen it.). I cut it nice and high up the stem where I had very straight grain, and I lost it sideways because the tension "wood," was actually quite dead. 
Anyways... I says to myself, I says, "Jed." I says... I says, "Jed, if youd'a cut that pig down in the flare..." I says. I says, "If youd'a cut that pig down in the flare, that pig woulda held on much better.
So anyways... that's what I says to myself, at any rate. Now whether or not It'da held on better or not is anyone's guess since I don't have the forensic evidence to prove it, but I'll be danged if it don't. Maybe I'm wrong.
Burnham: You seem to be suggesting that the twisted wood-grain in the wider (because more basal area) hinge down lower, woud end up sort of "fighting," the nice, clear directional capability of the straight up and down grain further in. I wonder about this. I feel like I'm right and you're wrong, but talk is cheep. (Well let me qualify: MY TALK IS CHEAP.) MUCH cheaper than yours at any rate, and I deeply appreciate the response. I certainly didn't mean to pick a bone with your (obviously, vastly greater) experience, and I will head your opinon much more heavily going forward.
Yeah... ok, the "laziness," point is a bit weak since we (all sensible folk, anyway) tend to do what's most expedient in a given situation. I concede.
I still have an axe to grind about the "greater 'stump-holding' power," of the low cut, though. Let me get some ice cream while I think about this a sec.
O.k. foget the ice cream for now, I'm just gonna keep it real: Last week, I missed my shot terribly on a quite tall Big Leaf Maple stem. (Burnham, isn't it funny that the whole time we are having this conversation, we are only pictureing nice big Firs in our heads.
) Anyways... as I was saying I missed my shot, and badly goofed up the neighbor's Cedar. (which he ended up not caring about at all )So anyways... back to the stem. This maple was in decline pretty bad (a good faller probably wouldn't even have fallen it.
). I cut it nice and high up the stem where I had very straight grain, and I lost it sideways because the tension "wood," was actually quite dead. Anyways... I says to myself, I says, "Jed." I says... I says, "Jed, if youd'a cut that pig down in the flare..." I says. I says, "If youd'a cut that pig down in the flare, that pig woulda held on much better.
So anyways... that's what I says to myself, at any rate. Now whether or not It'da held on better or not is anyone's guess since I don't have the forensic evidence to prove it, but I'll be danged if it don't. Maybe I'm wrong.
Burnham: You seem to be suggesting that the twisted wood-grain in the wider (because more basal area) hinge down lower, woud end up sort of "fighting," the nice, clear directional capability of the straight up and down grain further in. I wonder about this. I feel like I'm right and you're wrong, but talk is cheep. (Well let me qualify: MY TALK IS CHEAP.) MUCH cheaper than yours at any rate, and I deeply appreciate the response. I certainly didn't mean to pick a bone with your (obviously, vastly greater) experience, and I will head your opinon much more heavily going forward.
While I TOTALLY agree with the rest, I'd love to have you come fell a Beech tree, making the stump as low as we are required to, with your gigantic PNW dogs, Burnham.
Can't be done.
I bought a set of those dogs years ago, and found that out.
They sat on the shelf for a few years, and every apprentice, I had, fell in love with them, because they just look sooooooooooooooo cool on a saw.
They all gave up on then and eventually, I raffled them away here.
Can't be done.
I bought a set of those dogs years ago, and found that out.
They sat on the shelf for a few years, and every apprentice, I had, fell in love with them, because they just look sooooooooooooooo cool on a saw.
They all gave up on then and eventually, I raffled them away here.
Ok, I am the complete big tree novice here...and as can be seen in Husky's picture and I've seen in Stig's too...we tend to cut the buttresses off before felling.
That's how I was taught, follow the average diameter of the trunk down, cut off the buttresses, then fell the tree. Maybe more of a short bar technique than having anything to do with buttress/flare wonky grain?
Because I don't do a whole lot of large tree felling (well almost none, and these pics are not big trees) I just do what I was taught (and my tutors were all UK forestry blokes, and this was a National Standard)) I haven't really analyzed it to the 'n'th degree...
That's how I was taught, follow the average diameter of the trunk down, cut off the buttresses, then fell the tree. Maybe more of a short bar technique than having anything to do with buttress/flare wonky grain?
Because I don't do a whole lot of large tree felling (well almost none, and these pics are not big trees) I just do what I was taught (and my tutors were all UK forestry blokes, and this was a National Standard)) I haven't really analyzed it to the 'n'th degree...
Attachments
Burnham
Woods walker
Those are some mighty remarkable flares there, Fi. Certainly an interesting way to go at them...not challenging your technique, friend...just way different than what I have had to deal with. Western red cedar is the native species local to me that is most inclined to present these deep flutes at the root flare. Dumb me (or maybe not 
)...I just cut high enough to be above all that complicated business. Fine pictures of even finer work, btw m'lady.
Stig, sir. I will happily accept your expert assertion. I don't quite get it, as obviously my own limited experience leaves me lacking in understanding.
To whit...in my experience, if I only can engage a single point of a dog set, either inner or outer ( t'would almost always be the outer, but rare exceptions have come to pass), at any position along the 4 or 5 points of the dog set, due to extreme unevenness at the point on the bole I wish to start cutting my face or backcut, I just balance on that point, eyeball level or the proper angle of bar as required, and carry on.
We all know your experience surpasses mine. Acknowledged with no reservation. But I'd like to hear a more detailed explanation of the difficulties you experience with bigger dogs on your felling saws. Even old sawyers can learn things new to them...I have heard.
This is the first I've understood that use of full sized PNW dogs was a problem for your daily situation. The problems with full or 3/4 wrap handles I grasp completely...dogs, not so much.
)...I just cut high enough to be above all that complicated business. Fine pictures of even finer work, btw m'lady.Stig, sir. I will happily accept your expert assertion. I don't quite get it, as obviously my own limited experience leaves me lacking in understanding.
To whit...in my experience, if I only can engage a single point of a dog set, either inner or outer ( t'would almost always be the outer, but rare exceptions have come to pass
), at any position along the 4 or 5 points of the dog set, due to extreme unevenness at the point on the bole I wish to start cutting my face or backcut, I just balance on that point, eyeball level or the proper angle of bar as required, and carry on.We all know your experience surpasses mine. Acknowledged with no reservation. But I'd like to hear a more detailed explanation of the difficulties you experience with bigger dogs on your felling saws. Even old sawyers can learn things new to them...I have heard
. This is the first I've understood that use of full sized PNW dogs was a problem for your daily situation. The problems with full or 3/4 wrap handles I grasp completely...dogs, not so much.
pantheraba
More biners!!!
Beautiful work there, Bermy. I am envious of your precision.
Burnham
Woods walker
Some thoughts, Jed...mine in bold, inserted into your quoted post.
Not THAT'S what I'm talkin about!!! A good, solid refutation!
Yeah... ok, the "laziness," point is a bit weak since we (all sensible folk, anyway) tend to do what's most expedient in a given situation. I concede.
I still have an axe to grind about the "greater 'stump-holding' power," of the low cut, though. Let me get some ice cream while I think about this a sec.
O.k. foget the ice cream for now, I'm just gonna keep it real: Last week, I missed my shot terribly on a quite tall Big Leaf Maple stem. (Burnham, isn't it funny that the whole time we are having this conversation, we are only pictureing nice big Firs in our heads.
So anyways... back to the stem. This maple was in decline pretty bad (a good faller probably wouldn't even have fallen it.
Anyways... I says to myself, I says, "Jed." I says... I says, "Jed, if youd'a cut that pig down in the flare..." I says. I says, "If youd'a cut that pig down in the flare, that pig woulda held on much better.
Jed...get a grip
So anyways... that's what I says to myself, at any rate. Now whether or not It'da held on better or not is anyone's guess since I don't have the forensic evidence to prove it, but I'll be danged if it don't. Maybe I'm wrong. Yup...you are, again.
Burnham: You seem to be suggesting that the twisted wood-grain in the wider (because more basal area) hinge down lower, woud end up sort of "fighting," the nice, clear directional capability of the straight up and down grain further in. I wonder about this. Why do you wonder, Jed? By your earlier assertion, the low twisty wood is stronger. If it is, then it MUST overpower the plain jane straight grain, right? And if that is so, and if my point that there can be no expectation that that same twisty grain will provide equal holding power on the most critical part of the hingewood, aka the outer sections, is true (and you have not questioned that, yet anyway), then there clearly can be no expectation on the part of the faller that the very low facecut/backcut can be as trustworthy as a higher one in clearer straight grain, so far as putting the tree to the targeted lay. I feel like I'm right and you're wrong, but talk is cheep. (Well let me qualify: MY TALK IS CHEAP.) MUCH cheaper than yours at any rate, and I deeply appreciate the response. I certainly didn't mean to pick a bone with your (obviously, vastly greater) experience, and I will head your opinion much more heavily going forward. Jed, no offense taken...you have not picked any bones with me that don't deserve a thoughtful reply, my old friend.
Burnham, cutting so low in the root flare with the big dogs means exactly what you are saying; you are forced to blance the saw on one point only.
While that can be done, having to do every felling cut that way as a bother. Especially since Beech is as hard as Madrone, so you don't get much purchase with the dogs at all.
So I went back to standard dogs.
I could of course do like Fiona and cut the rootflares of first, but unless I have to do it to reach through, I perefer to to that when the tree is on the ground.
Makes for a better work position.
While that can be done, having to do every felling cut that way as a bother. Especially since Beech is as hard as Madrone, so you don't get much purchase with the dogs at all.
So I went back to standard dogs.
I could of course do like Fiona and cut the rootflares of first, but unless I have to do it to reach through, I perefer to to that when the tree is on the ground.
Makes for a better work position.
That is huge.
Stig, since you do martial arts and wood cutting, do they ever remind you of each other. Ya know, all the little things one does when cutting trees to make it easier, more efficient, safer, faster. And then in bjj for example, 'no don't grab the arm here, grab it higher just above the elbow, with your thumb placed here', can make all the difference.
MasterBlaster
Administrator Emeritus
Martial arts connect with almost everything.
pantheraba
More biners!!!
Boss has the wisdom...part of our Bando martial art system is a yoga system. See any similarities?
Understanding of balance and motion is the key to efficiency...not just in the tree but on the ground. Using good body mechanics is important in MA, yoga, treework, welding, farming, etc.
Understanding of balance and motion is the key to efficiency...not just in the tree but on the ground. Using good body mechanics is important in MA, yoga, treework, welding, farming, etc.
Attachments
Burnham
Woods walker
I get it better now, Stig. Thanks. It does seem to me that those same issues would occur with small dogs, but that obviously isn't true for you.
Although I must point out...in your initial reply to my post re the big dogs and how I deal with that issue with them, you said "it couldn't be done". Afterwards, you posted that it could be done, if one balanced the saw on a single point. There was my point...it can be done...but agree that having to do so on every tree would become tedious in a hurry.
Although I must point out...in your initial reply to my post re the big dogs and how I deal with that issue with them, you said "it couldn't be done". Afterwards, you posted that it could be done, if one balanced the saw on a single point. There was my point...it can be done...but agree that having to do so on every tree would become tedious in a hurry
.
pantheraba
More biners!!!
Jed
TreeHouser
Burnham: You misunderstood me a bit in yer last post. Also... Could you have perhaps misunderstood (or am I misunderstanding him ) Stig. I don't think that he was asserting that the root-flare problem was noticeably BETTER with smaller dogs... it's just that smaller dogs are so much better in that situation because they save out so much guide bar length.
Gary: Pretty much the raddest pics ever tooken, (not taken). Thanks so much!
Stig/Burnham: The fact that you guys BOTH disagree with me means that I am almost certainly wrong. And yet!!... And yet! I am a tree man! And we all know that we tree men are obstinate untill the last! Why wouldn't we be?! After all!... We're usually right... and the other guys are usually wrong.
But all joking aside, this is all written in an ardent spirit for the quest of truth, and not to win some silly grudge match.... So..... One question... then a coupla pics... then a few more questions.
Question: Imagine a triangle. In your venerable opinions, is the strongest point at the base or further up the triangle?... So today I cut this root-rot fir as low as I could with a quite narrow Humboldt (there was a ton of dirt in the lowest bark) and then a rather huge "bird-face" traditional scarf so that the tree could travel darn-near 70 degrees before the face closed (homeowner and our very young trainee in pic) and it placed my hinge in some very twisty wood at the extremes of both corners. I used a 32" bar with medium dogs, and had to nip about an inch and a half to get the far-corner in decent shape. Notice the fiber-pull on the tension side.
That pig flew as straight as an arrow, and still, despite the mondo face opening, somehow managed to pull about 3' of roots on the tension side. (Burnham: this is all I meant by, "stump-holding power.")...
Notice the root rot, and then please notice, if you can, the almost perfectly vertical grain orientation of the majority of the holding wood (lets say about 60 percent of the centermost wood) in this log picture.
So it is only on the extreme ends of the hinge that the wood goes extremely "twisty", and the centermost, say, 60 percent of hinge is in quite vertical grain. NO my dear Burnham! I did not mean to suggest in my post that the twisty wood was stronger than the vertical wood, but merely to assert that a hinge consisting of the SAME AMMOUT OF VERTICAL WOOD AS THE SAME STEM WOULD EXHIBIT HIGHER UP, while yet retaing the benefit of the (and HERE is the material point) added compression strength that the twisty wood lends to the straight wood. Think of the entire weight of the tree crushing down on our precious "straight wood." Now think of the same ammout of straight wood being "saved-out," or bolstered, or assisted by the compression strength of the additional twisty wood. Burnham, I think you completely misunderstood me. My contention was never that "twisty wood is stronger, and therefore wins." In fact, my real belief is that, even though the grain orientation of the twisty wood is not ideal for purposes of directing the tree to the lay, it nonetheless assists in that function by "saving-out," the preferred vertical grain by the added compression strength that it lends. Ohhh... by, "stump-holding power," I was also referring to the strength that a lower, and therefore wider strip of holding wood can provide for "re-directing," a trees fall once a narrow humboldt face closes, for the ol' swing Dutchmen trick, etc. But, aside from what I once heard demonized as, "trick-falling,"... I still maintain that the wider hinge is always, or very nearly always the best hinge for seeing a tree to its lay, and that this usually occurs as low as possible, and therefore incorporates some twisty wood. If you both disagree with me on this, then I think that you both will also allow that on a windy day, my argument certainly wins.
Your thoughts/rebuttals/reprisals? I'm waiting on pins and needles.
) Stig. I don't think that he was asserting that the root-flare problem was noticeably BETTER with smaller dogs... it's just that smaller dogs are so much better in that situation because they save out so much guide bar length.Gary: Pretty much the raddest pics ever tooken, (not taken). Thanks so much!
Stig/Burnham: The fact that you guys BOTH disagree with me means that I am almost certainly wrong. And yet!!... And yet! I am a tree man! And we all know that we tree men are obstinate untill the last! Why wouldn't we be?! After all!... We're usually right... and the other guys are usually wrong.
But all joking aside, this is all written in an ardent spirit for the quest of truth, and not to win some silly grudge match.... So..... One question... then a coupla pics... then a few more questions.
Question: Imagine a triangle. In your venerable opinions, is the strongest point at the base or further up the triangle?... So today I cut this root-rot fir as low as I could with a quite narrow Humboldt (there was a ton of dirt in the lowest bark) and then a rather huge "bird-face" traditional scarf so that the tree could travel darn-near 70 degrees before the face closed (homeowner and our very young trainee in pic) and it placed my hinge in some very twisty wood at the extremes of both corners. I used a 32" bar with medium dogs, and had to nip about an inch and a half to get the far-corner in decent shape. Notice the fiber-pull on the tension side.
That pig flew as straight as an arrow, and still, despite the mondo face opening, somehow managed to pull about 3' of roots on the tension side. (Burnham: this is all I meant by, "stump-holding power.")...
Notice the root rot, and then please notice, if you can, the almost perfectly vertical grain orientation of the majority of the holding wood (lets say about 60 percent of the centermost wood) in this log picture.
So it is only on the extreme ends of the hinge that the wood goes extremely "twisty", and the centermost, say, 60 percent of hinge is in quite vertical grain. NO my dear Burnham! I did not mean to suggest in my post that the twisty wood was stronger than the vertical wood, but merely to assert that a hinge consisting of the SAME AMMOUT OF VERTICAL WOOD AS THE SAME STEM WOULD EXHIBIT HIGHER UP, while yet retaing the benefit of the (and HERE is the material point) added compression strength that the twisty wood lends to the straight wood. Think of the entire weight of the tree crushing down on our precious "straight wood." Now think of the same ammout of straight wood being "saved-out," or bolstered, or assisted by the compression strength of the additional twisty wood. Burnham, I think you completely misunderstood me. My contention was never that "twisty wood is stronger, and therefore wins." In fact, my real belief is that, even though the grain orientation of the twisty wood is not ideal for purposes of directing the tree to the lay, it nonetheless assists in that function by "saving-out," the preferred vertical grain by the added compression strength that it lends. Ohhh... by, "stump-holding power," I was also referring to the strength that a lower, and therefore wider strip of holding wood can provide for "re-directing," a trees fall once a narrow humboldt face closes, for the ol' swing Dutchmen trick, etc. But, aside from what I once heard demonized as, "trick-falling,"... I still maintain that the wider hinge is always, or very nearly always the best hinge for seeing a tree to its lay, and that this usually occurs as low as possible, and therefore incorporates some twisty wood. If you both disagree with me on this, then I think that you both will also allow that on a windy day, my argument certainly wins.
Your thoughts/rebuttals/reprisals? I'm waiting on pins and needles.
flushcut
TreeHouser
Who's the old guy with the crinkly face?
pantheraba
More biners!!!
Pretty sure he said that is the HO.
SeanKroll
Treehouser
Root diseased trees with hollows--- wider or more hinge fibers higher up?
Jed
TreeHouser
Yeah Rajan, like Gary said... it was the Homeowner. He was the raddest guy in the world, running around with his Stihl firewood saw. A man after my own heart. He said, "I just love the sound of a chainsaw. I grew up in Indianapolis, and where I lived, I could go outside on Saturday morning and hear three or four of em blaring away off in the woods." We fixed his weird, side-winder chain tensioner for him. He was such a rad dude.
Man, Sean, I don't know, that's a really good question, and I'd pay anything to have some seasoned production cutters who've been into a lot of Armillaria weigh-in on it. Of course, we may as well say that a guy could always cut low first to one third, look for rot in the face opening, and then cut up higher to one third, since, that would necessarily place his face deeper into the tree than he would be down lower, because of the reduced diameter higher up the taper. I dunno man, root rot's super scary. The only super bad one that I got into exhibited almost NOTHING that a guy could call "the signs," up in the crown. Looked pretty dang healthy. I put a face in down low, and saw the rot, but (I thought) really no big deal. Put the back cut in and that pig sat down HARD on the wedge. I quit cutting and began banging. It lifted by the skin of my teeth with wedges all across the back. I very nearly lost it sideways into an 8' cyclone fence topped with barbed wire at a water treatment plant.
This was just last summer.
Man, Sean, I don't know, that's a really good question, and I'd pay anything to have some seasoned production cutters who've been into a lot of Armillaria weigh-in on it. Of course, we may as well say that a guy could always cut low first to one third, look for rot in the face opening, and then cut up higher to one third, since, that would necessarily place his face deeper into the tree than he would be down lower, because of the reduced diameter higher up the taper. I dunno man, root rot's super scary. The only super bad one that I got into exhibited almost NOTHING that a guy could call "the signs," up in the crown. Looked pretty dang healthy. I put a face in down low, and saw the rot, but (I thought) really no big deal. Put the back cut in and that pig sat down HARD on the wedge. I quit cutting and began banging. It lifted by the skin of my teeth with wedges all across the back. I very nearly lost it sideways into an 8' cyclone fence topped with barbed wire at a water treatment plant.
This was just last summer.
Burnham
Woods walker
I'm real sorry, Jed. I simply cannot follow your train of thought to have it make sense to me. I think you are way overthinking this. I'll say it again...convoluted, twisty grain is not going to reliably fold, as hingewood. Some will hold like a demon...some will break off early. No way to guess which it will be....but you almost certainly can expect dissimilar reactions from one end of a hinge to the other, cut down in that twisted grain. That alone means the expected direction as set by the hinge cannot be trusted to come to fruition. One end will pull stronger than the other, just like a tapered hinge or a dutchman will. Some trees will fall to the lay fine, sure...but some will not, and imo more will miss than hit. That makes the whole idea a bad one, from my perspective.
All the rest you have posted about...this business of crush resistance...those ideas are going over my head. I don't understand, or for the parts I do think I understand what you're saying, I don't buy. Sorry bro, there it is. But please keep questioning me...just because I think you are wrong, and Stig thinks you are wrong, doesn't necessary mean you are wrong. I sure know I have been before, and I doubt Stig is flawless either...barely.
But the odds are perhaps somewhat against you, my friend. Just sayin' .
All the rest you have posted about...this business of crush resistance...those ideas are going over my head. I don't understand, or for the parts I do think I understand what you're saying, I don't buy. Sorry bro, there it is. But please keep questioning me...just because I think you are wrong, and Stig thinks you are wrong, doesn't necessary mean you are wrong. I sure know I have been before, and I doubt Stig is flawless either...barely
.But the odds are perhaps somewhat against you, my friend
. Just sayin' .
flushcut
TreeHouser
I love reading the adults arguing about felling cuts. 
I don't have anything to add so I'll just eat ma popcorn.
I don't have anything to add so I'll just eat ma popcorn.
CurSedVoyce
California Hillbilly
Jed make a low cut on some of the ones I am felling right now, they would be hard pressed to fall to your desired lay, and would eat your wedges for lunch. Best be standing a nd cutting waist high. Termites and grubs falling out of your face cut.
You tension the rope, and the limbs fall off as you stand way back to see if the rope will hold over something. 3" limbs.
In good wood, your root flair tear can swing the tree more than 10 degrees out of the desired lay. I'll stick with straighter grain.
No offence Jed. Your a good tree man. But I think you been watching too many Murphy vids with a cold one.
