Big CC Chainsaws a thing of the past or will new models come out soon?

[Toad]

23 minutes ago, Stubby said:

It was a dick cutter ? stone saw originally ? 

What sort of dicks need 120cc to cut through?

[Robin Wood]

It was a dick cutter ? stone saw originally ? 

Nah its a chainsaw mate

[Robin Wood]

Robin, do you use the saws yourself?
Or are you in sales or a mechanic?
Interesting about the 1200’s torque.
How would you go about using that increase?
[emoji106]

I run a tree service in my country
Use all these saws, tinker with it, mod it, buy and sell. Always doing crazy things lol

Here's a custom chainsaw powered winch im working on, guess the power head
It'll be a prototype before i finalise the design

One of those bolts let loose and hit some part on the pto side case, minor set back. Gonna call it a day and have some beers lol. Happy thanksgiving guys, yall have a good one

[Robin Wood]

You can lean on the saw a bit more I would think .

And it can handle load better, low rakers in other words

[Stubby]

Just now, Robin Wood said:

16 minutes ago, Stubby said:

You can lean on the saw a bit more I would think .

And it can handle load better, low rakers in other words

Yea I understand torque . 200 hp tractor can pull a house up a hill at 20mph all day long . 200hp sports car can bat along at 180mph al day long . Each can't do what the other can .

[bmp01]

27 minutes ago, Robin Wood said:

Im not comparing those, they're not it in the same league. Pay attention to the numbers, look where is the tq coming from on the echo. Tq and hp will always meet at 5252 rpm, often times on small 2 stroke engines they will be developed in later rpms and lost in high up rpms. 1200 develops tq way low in the rpm which gives it the lugging power for our hardwood.

Ms880 and 3120xp has 7.8nm max tq while 1200 has 9.5nm tq. However hp developed by 880 and 3120 are much higher due to the rpms they're spinning. 880 is 8.5hp range, 3120 should be close at 8.2hp and 1200 is at a mere 7hp. All saws are in stock form
 

Robin - given the speed difference for peak torque which is fundamentally designed into the engine with port timing, port lengths and diameters etc wouldn't a better comparison be between the cs1200 and say Stihl 056, 076 or something from that era ??

Torque is only half the story though, how many teeth on drive sprocket of your CS1200 to get comparable chain speed to the modern saws you are comparing with ? Or is the CS1200 geared for slow chain  speed only ? Horses for courses I suppose.

 

[shavey]

36 minutes ago, Stubby said:

You can lean on the saw a bit more I would think .

Yeah stubby you definitely can it does pull well cross cutting and milling

[Rough Hewn]

I run a tree service in my country
Use all these saws, tinker with it, mod it, buy and sell. Always doing crazy things lol

Here's a custom chainsaw powered winch im working on, guess the power head
It'll be a prototype before i finalise the design

One of those bolts let loose and hit some part on the pto side case, minor set back. Gonna call it a day and have some beers lol. Happy thanksgiving guys, yall have a good one

Robin you sound like a good bloke[emoji106]
I cut 99% hardwoods in the uk,
But to be honest I try to avoid milling seasoned trunks, only do fresh.
I find the teeth can wear down to blunt from a new .404 chain in 2’ of very very seasoned ash. Guy I chat with in Australia uses a 25” bar on his highly modded 880.
That’s for forest fire hardened stuff, mentally hard apparently (I believe it?).
Have you tried Oregon hyper skip chain?
It’s fantastic for really long bars, it does dull quicker but very quick to sharpen.

That winch looks interesting, curious to see more [emoji106]

Do you ever do any chainsaw milling?
That torque would really help [emoji106][emoji106][emoji106]

[Robin Wood]

Yea I understand torque . 200 hp tractor can pull a house up a hill at 20mph all day long . 200hp sports car can bat along at 180mph al day long . Each can't do what the other can .

You nailed it mate
I've had this conversations in the past, long ones. In other forums, not sure i can mention names here. Anyway there were always 2 camps, one that prefers hp and the other that prefers tq. Both serve their purpose in the given environment

In that discussion we all finally agreed in chainsaws it will come down rim/sprocket setup. That is our gearing, unfortunately its limited. You can up, not down. I measured crank ends on few models and realised i cant fab a 6 tooth rim sprocket for my 395. If i can do that i wont need a big saw, my 395 will do everything i need and more. When you gear down you lose rpm and gain tq, that balance is what we're looking for when cutting wood. We need enough tq to overcome the load aka the wood and as much rpm as we need.

In soft wood its all about speed, because the load factor is minimal. In hardwood its the opposite

[Robin Wood]

Robin - given the speed difference for peak torque which is fundamentally designed into the engine with port timing, port lengths and diameters etc wouldn't a better comparison be between the cs1200 and say Stihl 056, 076 or something from that era ??
Torque is only half the story though, how many teeth on drive sprocket of your CS1200 to get comparable chain speed to the modern saws you are comparing with ? Or is the CS1200 geared for slow chain  speed only ? Horses for courses I suppose.
 

Now we're talking, someone who speaks my language lol
Port timings on 1200 are very conservative, the last time i put a degree wheel on it. It had 100ex, 120tr, 75int nothing fancy in there.

You're right its league competition will be 070/075 and all those torque monsters. It will eat said models alive without breaking a sweat

It comes with 7 pin 404 on 1200, 1201 got updated with clutch and sprocket that will interchange with 070

I went through every single aspect to find where the hell the tq is coming from and i found something very interesting, nothing is really fancy on this saw. But how is it making so much tq?

1200 58mm bore x 44mm stroke
070 58mm bore x 40mm stroke
3120 60mm bore x 42mm stroke
880 60mm bore x 43mm stroke

I'll share that interesting finding in abit