Coronet specification?

[Amelanchier]

Just a thought based on another current thread. Anyone produced a detailed specification for coronet cuts?

 

I wonder if its possible? Perhaps

 

As part of the specified reduction, all branches over 150mm should be cut using the coronet technique. This will involve the creation of stubs before the normal target pruning points at approx three to five times their basal

diameter. Subsequently, one or more long angled cuts will be used to achieve a fracture profile that will extend for a minimum of two thirds of the length of the stub. In order to enhance the formation of adventitious buds, the profile must then be cut so as to include jagged ends providing a large surface area of wounded tissue. In achieving this the smaller the cuts, the less frequently it will be used to ensure an aesthetic balance.

 

Natural fracture pruning is a bit harder I think. Some trees you want to reduce severely but in an 'natural' way - but without comprimising brach protection zones. Ones that aren't so valuable/visible you can let them tear/break anywhere.

 

Anyway, I'm interested in whether the 'art' could be specified to the point where it can be understood and implemented by an average arb ('cos we all know dumbass space cadets that can get any spec wrong regardless of simplicity). I'm also trying to spec out the Bart Simpson/meat tenderiser cut.

 

So add, subtract, rewrite, dismiss, mock, derail, rerail etc.

[gibbon]

I would normally specify, or have specified: using coronet type cut to mimic natural failure. This might be specific to cuts over a given diameter or not depending on the job.

 

In my experince the quality of coronet is going to be down to the guy in the tree rather than the detail on the spec. Where and how long the cuts is will also depend on your ability to tear limbs and available work postioning, especially given the increase risk of kick back.

 

I'm not sure that over specifying on paper will stop the bart simpson look. If its someones first attempt its bound to look a little wrong. May be you ought to just specify that it should be carried out by someone experienced in these techniques?

[Amelanchier]

In my experince the quality of coronet is going to be down to the guy in the tree rather than the detail on the spec. Where and how long the cuts is will also depend on your ability to tear limbs and available work postioning, especially given the increase risk of kick back.

 

I'm not sure that over specifying on paper will stop the bart simpson look. If its someones first attempt its bound to look a little wrong. May be you ought to just specify that it should be carried out by someone experienced in these techniques?

 

With regard to work positioning/tearing/kickback - I kinda think we should expect the climber/contracter to quote accordingly. Which is why its essential to spec precisely!

 

The benefit of a tight spec is that the client won't have to pay for a bart simpson. If the spec is tied into a planning/top condition then the works can be enforced, but only if the detail supports it.

 

Speccing experience is hard to qualify - when are you experienced???

[David Humphries]

Just a thought based on another current thread. Anyone produced a detailed specification for coronet cuts?

 

 

 

No, and I'm yet to find one.

 

I believe Paul Muir at T E P produced an R/A around coros a few years back, but from memory it was pretty much all based around work positioning.

 

 

Our vetranisation is all inhouse, except for on one occasion when within a short contract at one of our smaller parks, an LA Contractor came and produced this piece of art, without having been given any kind of detailed spec within the contract, other than verbal description.

 

.

Edited January 16, 2010 by Monkey-D

[gibbon]

I see where your coming from regarding enforecement. I think your description is workable I just don't like very tight specifications as I like the flexibility to make decisions when in the tree.

 

I know guys who do not reccomend this type of cutting at all due to the perceived risk to the operator.

 

In regard to when you are experienced, well thats the $64k question. I think fracture/coronet/destructive work what ever you want to call it is rather a specialism as apposed to a standard cut in a climbers bag of tricks. Some people do a lot of it an others never. Thats perhaps a reason why it may be worth considering suggesting a suitable contractor rather than over detailing. No matter how detailed your spec some cuts will always be better than others.

 

I would be interested to hear how much detail Monkeyd uses in his work orders.

 

2am on Saturday mornings pretty late to be thinking about this though isn't it?

 

Edit:He beat me too it

[Peter]

A picture is worth a thousand words.

 

Why not include some photos of good coronets as examples? You could go on forever with the spec and still get presented with a meat tenderiser as per Monkeyds example.

[David Humphries]

I see where your coming from regarding enforecement. I think your description is workable I just don't like very tight specifications as I like the flexibility to make decisions when in the tree.

 

I know guys who do not reccomend this type of cutting at all due to the perceived risk to the operator.

 

In regard to when you are experienced, well thats the $64k question. I think fracture/coronet/destructive work what ever you want to call it is rather a specialism as apposed to a standard cut in a climbers bag of tricks. Some people do a lot of it an others never. Thats perhaps a reason why it may be worth considering suggesting a suitable contractor rather than over detailing. No matter how detailed your spec some cuts will always be better than others.

 

I too think Tonys description is workable, but I think you're spot on here Gibbon.

 

It is a specialist technique, and I believe that as the aesthetics are a big part of the spec, a MEWP is sometimes the only way to acheive the best possible work position to eliminate/reduce the risk of kick back & help get a 360 view of what your actually creating.

Though ofcourse that's not always practicable.

 

 

 

A picture is worth a thousand words..

 

Mmmmmm, pictures...............

 

http://arbtalk.co.uk/forum/tree-health-care/440-coronet-not-coronet-now-question.html

 

 

 

.

[Dan Curtis]

May be you ought to just specify that it should be carried out by someone experienced in these techniques?

 

How do you become experienced without practical experience?

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter

A picture is worth a thousand words..

 

Monkey d says-:Mmmmmm, pictures...............

 

LOL!

[gibbon]

How do you become experienced without practical experience?

 

You could ask that question of any task.