wyk

That's a hard dutchman. You can get away with it if the tree has wood that won't give easily like in some firs. I've used it often in a fir. But it won't get you 90* from the lean unless you also work the hinge as well. On a chestnut, I can see it breaking the hinge quickly, or causing a barber chair.

You put the face cut directed towards where you want it to fall. It fell about 90* from the lean, which was the purpose of a sizwheel. The extra hinge on that side slowly breaks away from the stump, causing the tree to swing. Assuming it isn't a horse chestnut*cough*

You'd think the photo of me from a hospital bed would be enough...

BTW that pic is from Humbolt county if I recall. Here's a vid if ya got some time to watch during yer lunch, going through the county amongst the redwoods. Many of those trees are about 10 foot+ DBH right there at the side of the road:

Thanks for the suggestions, folks. I understand all the traditional options, we just don't have the resources for it. I'll let you know how it goes.

I wish I had that option. The other side of the wall drops drastically down a hill that is slippery with no substantial trees to anchor to, the other side is a road with a phone line across from it I am trying to avoid if I can. The tree is tall for a chestnut as it's grown next to some tall thin cedars, which would be a terrible anchor point for a pully. Big enough I don't dare anchor it to a vehicle in case the hinge breaks and it goes wherever it wants, especially since the root ball is unstable and it's resting on a wall - it could easily lever itself over. I think it's better to chance the phone line since they are very flexible compared to power lines and trees fall across the phone lines along this road often enough from storms. That way I mainly just endanger myself and someones internet, vs the tractor or a climber. I wouldn't put a climber in this tree unless they were suicidal and said terrible things about my mother. We've been waiting for the tree to 'fix itself' as it looked like it might lose it's roots and just slide down the wall side or the hill, but it's leaned so far in to the road after the last few storms that we're worried it will lever over and on to it if the roots give, maybe hurting someone. It's forced our hand. In that vid you showed, it looks like the pine fell 90* from it's lean. But pine has very long fibres compared to chestnut(and a whole lot of other trees). I was hoping maybe someone tried it and could tell me how they go. I was thinking of using a few dutchmen cuts on one end and leaving more holding wood on the one side, waiting til it started to slowly swing about and then chasing it a bit. I only need about 45* from the lean to miss the lines. But the wood is so soft I might not need any dutchmen. I don't cut a lot of live chestnuts since they are worthless wood for what we use wood for on the estate. I only go after them if they are in the way, or threatening safety like this one is. So I've not tried to get creative on one. I was watching a vid a bud of mine stateside made a couple years back. It's done with red alder, which is a little like horsechestnut(but still more fibrous) as it grows near water. I have cut a LOT of alder in my time in Oregon, so it made me think maybe it could work on chestnut...

I don't suppose anyone's tried a sis-wheel on a horse chestnut? I know the fibers aren't very strong, but I do not have any on the estate available to try them on for practice that are close to the 20" or so this one is. I am afraid even if I leave plenty of hinge on one side that it will give too early. I'll be cutting it about 10' up the stem as it's leaning on a stone wall.

I was always impressed with the 7900. Today they are very strong runners without any fickle electronics, and weigh considerably less than a 572xp.

If you're gonna end up in mud, ya need to have much less air in the tyres. LIke 8-10psi. Just enough to keep the thing coming off the rim.

The OE figures are one of the reasons I started this data base nearly 8 years ago: http://www.pbase.com/wyk/unofficial_chainsaw_weight_gallery You'll notice the actual power head weights rarely agree with what the factory says they are.

Here's Scott AKA TreeMonkey, using an OE MS462CM in a cant of what appears to be poplar on a 28" bar. If you let the saw do the work and keep your chains sharp, I think that 462 could do about anything with a 20-24" bar.

If you're going to stick yer bar in to sumfin goopy, uh, there's a couple things you can do first. Take a small amount of your oil and smear it on the front of your chassis. I usually don't bother as general use will eventually wear that sap off anyways. Set the oiler to max. When you are cutting, often pull the bar a bit free and rev it to make sure it is getting more oil and sloughing off sap(you will see American cutters doing this when they cut sappy wood, they aren't just revving for fun). You could also use skip chain if it's gonna be a habit of yours to cut goop up. After you're done with the tree, bury your bar in a few pieces of clean wood if it's available. Clean your saw aSAP when done(see what I did there). BTW, Dawn( Metasequoia ), Coastal Redwood( Sequoia sempervirens ), and Giant Sequoia( Sequoiadendron giganteum ) are the three redwood trees classified under sequoiadae one can encounter. I have heard it called Wllingtonia here in Ireland and the UK. In Oregon and California I only would hear 'coastal' or 'sequoia' or 'redwood'. It was obvious which Redwood one was speaking of as coastal actually usually only does grow near the coast. Here's a pic of a some coast redwoods I took while I drove from California to Oregon one day:

It's difficult to convey how much pulling power a saw has in a video unless it's sumfin crazy like that MMWS 044 I had with finger ports and set to run at 15K RPM I like to show here on occasion. I was pushing it in to that chestnut and it just kept cutting. The 420sc in this vid is sort of a big saw for it's discplacement, so the bar doesn't look as big as it is. But it weighs the same as a 241CM, and I think they are set up great from the factory. It had like .028 squish at it's max measurement, and produced 178PSI according to my records without any break in. A good saw that I highly suggest. Ah hell, why not show folks what the other end of porting is like. This is what happens when you take a saw, grind it to within an inch of it's life, put a bigger carb on it, and mess about with the chain just to be safe, and then put way too much bar on it. Here's my Mastermind Work Saws 044 by Randy Evans. It was one of his personal saw test beds, so is rather drastically ported, more than he would do for a work saw usually. Back in 2010 or so, Randy and I had many discussions about the dynamics of what makes a saw work. The guy is pretty sharp, and I highly recommend his saws: It might not look like it, but I am babying it and trying not to dog it in to the wood too much - I was afraid it would blow out the bottom end or bend the conrod.

That saw has had a good working over. I contoured the lower transfer openings to flow more, raised the top xfers a bit, reshaped and changed the timing on the intake, removed the cat and a baffle, redid the exhaust oulet, and port matched the cylinder to the muffler. I think I also advanced the timing 6* or so. It had very good compression and squish, so I left those be. I think the small amount of grinding on the lower transfers really helped fill all 6 of them rather well at most RPM's. Here it is in a relatively hard and goopey larch, and then buried in horse chestnut. It was wearing a standard kerf .325 chain on a 16" bar.

These days when I do mod a saw, I tend to try and go more conservative than hot. I have an 044 that has had nothing but a dual port muffler added and some timing adjustment, and I am quite pleased with it's performance. I also meant to mention previously the fact that the EPA also makes certain other agreements, 'suggestions', and assertions aside from KwH emissions with manufacturers. Of those, the ones we know well about are making it difficult for unauthorised persons to make carb adjustments. But what was eluded to beforehand, is the EPA have admonished manufacturers to not share this information with customers. They've also agreed not to sell exhaust that are easy to modify as well; such as the old two piece STIHL exhausts. Some manufacturers have made it difficult to adjust timing, whether due to the ignition system, or the lack of a woodruff key. Some might even tell their retail outlets not to share any technical data or specs regarding emissions.

Well... baguettes are always better when they are crispy on the outside...

There's always butter, flour, and heat...

*cough*I'm in Ireland*cough*

Another point to ponder is what happens to all that carbon sequestered in that tree. If it's burned, well, that goes right back in to the air. There's probably more carbon there than your chainsaw is capable of producing over it's life if the tree is big enough. If it's turned to boards or furniture or carvings of beavers on a log or what have you, it's all locked away for maybe decades, maybe half a century or more if it's done right. If it's left to rot, that all goes back in to the environment within a few years.

Thou art far too kind. I have a few typos in it I need to address, tho... BTW, here's the EPA guidelines from the states I meant to quote that kicked all of this off: https://www.fs.fed.us/eng/pubs/html/02511204/02511204.htm#EPA

If you'll pardon my rambling diatribe: It's difficult to debate the emissions effectively on a ported vs OEM small engine. Many porters with take the combustion chamber and reshape it, whether through using different gaskets, or none at all, or by machining the cylinder base and combustion chamber. This promotes a better, cleaner burn, which begets more power. This is a step manufacturers can not themselves do because it is basically building to tolerances that they can not accept in assembly line manufacture without adding much higher costs(and risks) as every chamber will have to be measured and tested before leaving the factory VS a sample QC control test earlier on in the factory after forging/production. I have a ported 241 with a squish measurement that varies between .0199 and .018 depending on where the measurement is taken. The manufacturers measurement was closer to .037, a nice, safe assembly line part unlikely to cause production or customer issues. Noise is always an issue with ported saws, as part of what the manufacturer must take in to consideration is the noise output. This almost never goes hand in hand with performance - whether saw or bike or car or jet. Removing baffles or opening exhausts up more has always been a cheap way to gain more power. There are some saws I have tuned that have gained a 30% improvement in cut times with a muffler modification. Did this saw also produce 30% more emissions? I don't know, because I have no means to measure it. But it is often the case with two strokes that improving the power, improves the amount of hydrocarbons are burnt per HP. Porting itself changes the timing of the port openings and, or, their shape(in the most strictest sense). You certainly can argue the saw will take more fuel, because it's been specifically designed to do so. But whether in the over all scheme of things it puts out more carbon emissions vs the production output is difficult to debate without proper testing. Porting usually goes hand in hand with exhaust tuning and combustion chamber modification to make an over all package more powerful. The goal isn't really just to burn more fuel, but to make more power. Often times these can go hand in hand. Now let's reverse engineer a few things to get a better handle on why porting makes a difference: A manufacturer has to meet guidelines. The most recently applicable are the Phase II US EPA emissions that were phased in between 2001 and 2007 - the most pertinent designs of which measure carbon emissions per KwH. And we can easily argue the vibration and noise regulations from 2009 by the EU also apply(https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32009R0219 for the noise regulations). This is why we've seen several new developments in chainsaw design the last decade; more restrictive exhaust designs, different port timing, strato ports, catalytic converters(though these came on the scene in the late 90's in Europe, they are more common in saws made for other markets that have moved to our own in recent times - Japan, for example, does not require emissions testing on many small engines so long as the front of the machine meets EPA stage IIIa guidelines), newer electronic coils and timing, electronically controlled carbs, air injection systems, and fuel injection systems. Basically, with the exception of electronic ignition and carburetion, most of the technologies designed to reduce carbon emissions and to reduce noise emissions will reduce power, or reduced the RPM where the power would be delivered to reduce KwH emissions. Since all manufacturers had to play by these rules, they all redesigned their saws, but appeared to keep their HP ratings and saw weights in place due to marketing, even though they all most definitely changed for the worse. Some 10mm 044's in the EU had a single port muffler with a baffle and a catalytic converter, and yet STIHL rated these the same HP as their previous version without a duel ported muffler and no cat. Same weight, too. This is why your dual ported exhaust STIHL046 from the 90's will easily out cut a STIHLMS460 from the 2000's. And why the 044/440 disappeared for a while(to meet emissions). You can take any of these EPA conformist saws, measure their port timing and designs, and take many of them back to before they were modified whether for emissions, or noise, or both. That is porting. In other words, efficiency, performance, noise, and emissions are not necessarily bed pals, but are effected by regulations. Everyone had to play by the same rules, so no one player(besides maybe McCulloch before they sold out) suffered more than the others. One could easily argue this isn't necessarily an efficient engineered design - that this is engineering to meet regulations. Again, will this increase the KwH emissions to modify? Most surely, it will. But will it increase or descrese the KwH/W - the amount of emissions per out put of work done - who knows. This has likely never been tested because the manufacturers only need to conform to government rules. It's really up to us to decide whether it's something we want to do. I personally have very few saws that I haven't modified or ported myself. I like to spend as little time, with as little saw as possible when in the field. That's my priority.

Looks like deleted scenes from Rick and Morty

I'll try and get some video in the future. I think I've lost my go pro in the field

That'll give folks an idea about the weights.

Something like: https://www.chainsawbars.co.uk/product/188vxlhd009-oregon-versa-cut-18-3-8-058-68-drive-links/ or https://www.chainsawbars.co.uk/product/vt3u-8q45-a-sugihara-light-type-pro-18-3-8-058-68-drive-links/