Mani

how many hours has the 250 done and what jensen model are you comparing it to? is the 250 the double wheel trailer one? if so then its useless for the tight access work i do, if its tracked then thats ok.

yes, but they are very good.

Re your new chipper - I think you should concentrate on a basic model before you jump the gun with a turntable - extra weight, extra cost.

well, if thats the case I look forward to seeing this amazing new chipper of yours, i'll be watching this space, if its crap, you've got no excuses. are you one of those patronising sales people at all the shows? hope not. in any case i'm too busy with the tree surgery side of things to be bothered with chipper maintenance which is why i bought a jensen as all you need to do is grease a few nips and sharpen/change the blades, unlike a TW which falls apart after 40 hours. Possibly.

you had a conehead? saw one of them in ireland once, very amazing to see it in action.

try keeping the blades sharp, its not rocket science! Ha HA! you sir, are indeed the forum comedian. i salute your sense of humour. a small TW is the equivalent of a B&Q Homelite chainsaw and the jensen? - a Husky 372xp.

long term, a TW is the wrong chipper to buy if you are gonna be doing a lot of larger tree surgery work in confined streets/driveways. its not rocket science. a 6 inch Jensen is the way to go if you need a robust small chipper, the germans know how to build woodchippers and they done built a good one with the a530 and the old a528s. How many times have you seen a TW 150 chute block up? I reckon TW150 chute blockage is responsible for over a million lost hours per year in tree surgery work in the UK. All those wages standing around while one guy tries to dig out the chip from the puny flywheel area. why are TW150/190 chutes so skinny anyway. Want a real chute look at american chippers, how many times does a Bandit get blocked.....never.

is it legal to remove a dead TPO'd tree on the grounds of it being a danger to the public without contacting the LPA?

correct, cameron is a wimp and too left leaning for me, although he does have a disabled child which makes me think he isn't all silverspoonified, he's had to deal with the NHS, so he knows how bad it is. why does he not say anything different from new labour?

ha ha! its the only chipper he's had that does that, all the other chippers didn't need to be clean out regularly! TW are good for people who do leylandii hedge reductions ,, in fact thats what they were designed for which is why when you give them a large beech removal, they done sh*t themselves.

one of my friends has a TW150 and he had to remove that crappy black plastic box that covers the rollers because it kept getting jammed up with twiggy sh*te and stubby stuff, now he uses in residential areas with the cover off - hse wouldn't be happy. i'm waiting for one the workers to stick their had in it. didn't that roller cover bit on the old Entec version used to be made of steel? weight issue then i guess, my friends 150 also doesn't have brake.

i think he was talking about TWs. That small Jensen is well built.

by TW do you mean timberwolf, the build quality is terrible compared with Jensen or Schleising. i reckon you could drop a Schleising off the white cliffs of Dover onto the rocks below and it'd still work, albeit that you'd be chipping seaweed and the odd bit of driftwood.

is that the one with the molded hopper that cant be shut. looks like about 5 inch infeed? I tried that one for a few days, couldn't believe Jensen made it.

thats why they need to put vertical teeth on them like a shark rips flesh, i mean..sharks dont just have one big bloody flat edged tooth, they got multiple fangs

I couldn't take the document seriously when I saw all the Americanized spellings. it lost credibilty right there. the industry uses stump grinders and we carry out stump grinding not 'stump chippers' to carry out 'stump chipping'! sounds like something from Dad's Army! Right Boys! Break out the stump chipper! the Germans are coming! On the subject of stump grinders, there was no mention of barrier boards or detecting underground utilities before grinding. i'll need to look through again but there are loads of things that need changed.

how do you sharpen the rollers on a jensen? and how tight can you make the springs that force the roller down? i always thought jensens would be better at pulling in the branches in if they had serated teeth on the rollers like some of the schleisings have or do they? I dunno. jensens need to pull the stuff in better, thats a fact. why dont jensen make a big wide 12 inch roller like that guy ed is talking about for their 6 inch range?

finally, just finished reading the entire draft proposal. Shredding is too good for it.

yeah i've heard that, anyway, I think you'll find they want you to use the term 'stump chipping' not stump grinding as we all call it. from the draft - NOTE Mechanical destruction of a stump by stump chipping is less disruptive to the site than digging out. The section on stump grinding is titled - 'Stump Chipping' and makes several references to stump chipping. who are these people?!

I kid you not from the draft - 'Destruction of the stump by the use of explosives is not recommended.'

Try explaining this to an apprentice - 'If the species has whorled branches (e.g. Pinus spp.), the final cut should be at right angles to the grain, just distal to a whorl.' distal!! ha ha!

Ha ha!

it was definitely the Titchmarsh, only he could have come up with this classic - 'Stump removal by digging out should include disposal/utilization of the often substantial piece of woody material (see Clause 16).' here he is being interviewed by panorama about the bs3998 draft proposal, did you see it? he denies any involvement -

From the draft - Table 3 – Stump management options Pros Cons Possible management implications Stump retained – long term -alive or dead All stumps – general No costs in removing stump Wildlife habitat Mineral and nutrient recycling Natural biological control of pathogens No disturbance of underground structures No mechanical damage to roots of nearby plants No ground disturbance/compaction Continuing need for hazard management (e.g. trip hazard) (see Potential host for pathogens Limits the choices for future use of the area Appearance Potential for regrowth Pre and post-felling treatments to prevent regrowth Specification of height of retained stump Safety survey Coppice stump Natural regeneration Replacement tree Greater range of wildlife and greater longevity of habitat Cyclical cutting Singling stems High stump Greater range of wildlife and greater longevity of habitat Plant support Sculpture potential Larger area at risk for a longer period Safety survey over longer period Stump to be removed All stumps No future management No/reduced regrowth Space for other land use Reduced source for pests and/or pathogens No safety hazard Costs of removal and hole treatment Loss of wildlife habitat Loss of minerals and nutrients Root suckers Ground investigations e.g. underground structures Specification of height of stump prior to removal Pre/post-felling treatment to prevent regrowth Method of removal Hole treatment and reinstatement By assessing the pros and cons shown in Table 3, one of the following three end-results should be selected: a) live stump retained; b) dead stump retained; c) dead stump removed. it goes on about stumps for about 40 pages! how could someone possibly come up with this rubbish? never in the history of this country has so much energy and time been spent on the management of the humble stump.

from the draft - 'remove any new growth from the stump (e.g. cut or break off) as soon as it appears. This should be continued (if necessary over several years) until shoots are no longer produced.' who did this section?! Alan Titchmarsh? ha ha! I reckon Dimmock and Titchmarsh came up with the new draft!