18 stoner

Mmmmm! Cheers for the link bud. Its as I suspected though, not too eco if this latest info is anything to go by!

Cheers, I'll keep you in mind if it comes off. Should be a good job, one of our better ones. We would just need around 10 degrees of frost to make it a little easier.

Looks abused to me Ed, or is that used within full capalities:001_tt2:

Do you mind days on end dragging pyrocanther and blackthorn through bog and chip using a 5" chipper? Would be in Bridlington if the job comes in?

Ok, so eco plugs actually work then and seem to be the new desired way forward, but anyone know what the active ingredient is?

Very true Ewan, I also would like to point out that there are many, many saws with caps "close together", this certainly isnt the first. I'm not even sure the arguement even stands about wrong liquid in wrong hole, that happens just as easily when they are at either end of the saw! I have a 192t(that has caps "close together") and to date, it has never been incorrectly fuelled, yet it seems to happen occasionally on others! The "muck transfer" arguement just shows lazieness IMO. Anyhow, all that said it does look quite a nice thing, perhaps with a 10 or 12" bar it maybe well balanced. I have echo trimmers and have been very impressed with durability, build quality and design. My local dealer is also an echo agent, so may be worth an ask for a price. In all fairness, I dare say its more comparable to the 192 although on paper it should be similar to the 201, but those little 192's can sure pack a punch, especially after a basic muffler mod, so there maybe a little scope there on the echo? Going on what else is currently available on the market, I'd say this little saw is well worth a punt, especially given the price:thumbup1:

If any of the above happen its operator error. I take it its okay to have muck around your caps then if they are 8 inches apart? Being sloppy about filling up and not cleaning around caps prior to filling is bad practice, let alone shows what regard staff have for equipment IMO.

Not that this thread is about husq vs stihl, more about how stihl have lost the plot in general of recent years, I think you have identified the problem! Perhaps, Husqvarna have not gone out full hell for leather to become the market leaders in highstreet fasion like Stihl seemingly have. While Stihl have been taking advice from the likes of Gok on how good they should look, they have taken their eye off the real world, SAWS! Whilst bowing down to the stupid restrictions needing to be met by the worldwide emissions requirements, Stihl have given their engines the quick fix at the expense of the end user, and as result I'm sure the once immense reputation of being a world leader will suffer. This opinion comes from a very dissapointed life long Stihl fan, currently in the transitional stage over to the big orange one! .

Looks like a very viable option at the moment, useability and power etc would need to be felt I guess but going on the pathetic performance of the 201 and the way Husky have dealt with the release saga of theirs, I'd consider one:thumbup1:

Why?

I'd say that looks straight! I buy from the bay very regularly and have 120 positive feedback. Out of those, I'd say Ive only had one bad purchase. Over all I'd say those odds are better than buying through any other media.

Grinder:thumbup:

I have said it for years, but here you go again, it should not be used to kill stumps anyway! The concentration need to kill a stump is way above the designed useage of Glyphosate, as it is a FOLIAR acting herbicide. Yes, it works, yes its on the list, but also YES it will do you harm if you are exposed to it regularly.

David, thanks for sharing that. That gives me a little hope for the tree yet. Obviously we have the issue of the extent of Phytophra(sp), but if our chestnut responds even half as well as yours, we will have made the right decision. .

Geoff, have you any more info on modding the piston pump thingy, or a link or anything?

Thanks. I did purposely present the thread to provoke a reaction, I agree. It was not however, to deceive anyone from the arb world into giving a "wrong opinion" based on being given a minimum of facts. It was to give me an idea (and hopefully make other arbs aware) of the type of first reaction the general public would give at seeing such works. I feel that this alone shows that, in general the public know very little about our industry practices, yet see varying tree works evry day. Not sure a thread like this will ever change this, but perhaps it may make some arbs think a little more about forwarding info to the said "public". I live in hope! As for the T.O, we actually worked very closely and ended up going along more with his suggestions. In fact, we possibly didnt hit the tree as hard as he suggested, but this was with a certain opinion from the client to leave limbs a little longer. Very true Brett, but as Huck says it may be an uphill struggle for H/C at present due to the extent of the disease. As for future management, first thing is to see if it survives! Followoing that, assuming it does it will be monitored regularly with safety being the main priority.

Jamie, what you quoted was very tongue in cheek when I posted it. Not meant to antagonise, more to create more response, hopefully expanding the thread and provoking people to come forward more with their thoughts. As you say discussing such would hopefully create more awareness, I would give support where I can if you feel like starting a thread on those lines. Many thanks, Pete.

I guess it knows to move under the landy when the saws start too!

Sure is a lot of stuff in a tree like that. Just curious, but wouldn't that of felled?

Google is an amazing thing; Rocket Stoves - Home

18! Haha, Pete really:lol:

Not this time Paul. I have spent days in that tree in the past years, but my climbing days are getting fewer as I get older, greyer and fatter!

On another note from earlier in the thread, for those who gave a firm "fell and replant" opinion, one other reason for not doing this had been considered. Subsidence. Due to the age of the tree and building, and being approximately 6meters apart, if removal was opted for, heavy reduction would have been required initially. If the tree doesn't survive, part one has been carried out. For those who gave opinions initially, yet didnt know all the facts, this thread was aimed at you. In fact, my idea of getting initial impressions from tree related folk has spoken volumes to me. It gives good pointers to what "the public" may think. I feel that the thread, like the tree will, provoked an initial response. I hope that now the situation has been explain fully, those who were initially more negative about whats been done are happier now they know the reasoning. The next step I guess is a responsibility of the industry in general, and that is to educate the public. Sometimes what appears to be very crude or even uneducated practice, can actually be the opposite to that kneejerk reaction. Thanks to certain media and furums such as this "we" can hopefully get there, but its not an easy road to take. Thanks for all your input.

Yep, I see the fork you are on about now. The reasons for it being left like that were mainly due to being "the top of the tree". It was also a very handy final anchor point to decend from once the tree was finished. Appart from that, following the "shortening" of all the other limbs, the lengths were various. I cant see much difference between this particular pair to any others tbh, other than they are shorter:confused1: We need to accept that the majority of these wounds will decay in time, growth may be irratic and it may need further reduction in time. The specific lengths of individual limbs was open to individuals opinions, what we tried to do was leave a reasonable scaffold shape with some symmetry.

Even had a look at the pics again myself, but not sure what you mean?