Logging pics

Burnham said:

I'm real sorry, Jed. I simply cannot follow your train of thought to have it make sense to me. I think you are way overthinking this. I'll say it again...convoluted, twisty grain is not going to reliably fold, as hingewood. Some will hold like a demon...some will break off early. No way to guess which it will be....but you almost certainly can expect dissimilar reactions from one end of a hinge to the other, cut down in that twisted grain. That alone means the expected direction as set by the hinge cannot be trusted to come to fruition. One end will pull stronger than the other, just like a tapered hinge or a dutchman will. Some trees will fall to the lay fine, sure...but some will not, and imo more will miss than hit. That makes the whole idea a bad one, from my perspective.

All the rest you have posted about...this business of crush resistance...those ideas are going over my head. I don't understand, or for the parts I do think I understand what you're saying, I don't buy. Sorry bro, there it is. But please keep questioning me...just because I think you are wrong, and Stig thinks you are wrong, doesn't necessary mean you are wrong. I sure know I have been before, and I doubt Stig is flawless either...barely .

But the odds are perhaps somewhat against you, my friend . Just sayin' .

Click to expand...

Yeah... I'll say. But hang on I wanted to reply to Stephen: Man you seriously cracked me up with yer last post.
And Rajan: I know, right?

So Burnham: Yeah. That was not only the strongest argument I have ever heard for the straight-grain, if limited (in length) holding wood strip, that I have ever heard, but it is also one of the most cogent (not blowin smoke!) pieces of ratiocination that I have ever heard from a tree man. Maybe not sayin much... but still. I loved your last post. Little phrases like, "reliably fold," and, "dissimilar reactions," have nearly sold me alone on your (and everyone else's ) straight-grain hinge concept.

And let me at once concede (if I haven't already) that straight wood is ALWAYS preferable to twisty wood WHEN EQUAL AMMOUNTS OF EITHER ARE TO BE HAD in a given cut. Maybe I'm (ok I'm almost certainly) wrong.

My argument (but now I'm just being redundant) was based on the idea that the lower-placed hinge, retained the same, or nearly the same amount of straight-grain holding wood, but with the added benefit of what I called the "crush resistance," that a longer (wider) strip of holding wood would afford, albeit with a bit of twist in the mix. And I think you almost certainly understand me on this, B. Think about how strong wood is. We know that it has incredible compression strength, but what happens when you undermine 90% of a tree's compression strength (I think all known tree-falling manuals still specify 10% of a given tree's diameter for the rough thickness that a holding-wood strip should be left, is it not?) and consequently STACK UP 100% OF A TREE'S WEIGHT on a thin little bit of wood? My belief is that, "she mushes out a bit," that is to say that some directional capacity of the straight-grained (and therefore limited in width) hinge is lost due to the partial compression failure incurred by stacking up so much weight on a tiny, little strip. The tree is wider down lower so the same thickness of hinge will share more load... that's my only point.

I tell ya though... I've missed some plywood shots with brushed-out sticks pretty bad recently, and I'm beginning to have fledgling doubts regarding the veracity of my claims.

You can witness these real live failures on my stupid Instagram account. It's inbredjedd.

Again, B, thanks a ton. Your last post was a really good read.

Oh!!! The wind thing!!! Yeah, I almost forgot... I still maintain... maybe this will retain or foster my little two-bit controversy a little further. I still maintain... Let's say that you have to fall a tree on a windy day and you have restrictions on the left and right. It's not a "thread the needle," shot (what jackass would attempt that) but still, kinda tight, or a bit tight given the windy conditions. I still maintain (I may always maintain) that a man would be an absolute ass not (Now, ceterus parabus, mind you! I'm not talking about Stephan's craziness with all kinds of rot, or whatever.) to place his holding-wood strip down lower where it would be longer. Burnham: this is all I meant by, "stump-holding power," in an earlier post.

You keep on doing it like you think is best, Jed. You are no newbie to the trade, and you surely are forming up some mighty pretty felling cuts these days, ground and aloft. Far ahead of where you where 6 or 8 years ago. Nonetheless, I think you are setting yourself up for regular failures under your current approach, but it's your gig, not mine.

I will reiterate...your theme of crush resistance does not find a place in my experience...assuming healthy, sound wood. Sorry, but there it is...I think you are wrong about this issue in almost every case. I'll grant, supposing a tree had to set on a hinge for extended periods of time, maaaybeee...but that isn't often the real world scenario...usually, the tree doesn't sit on the hinge for much time at all. Well, unless you have screwed the pooch and have to whale on the wedges for a hour to get 'er over .

And most importantly, I still think your point in your last para is incorrect. We can overcome any moderately windy situation (and shouldn't attempt falling trees in wind beyond that, I believe we agree ) and achieve a more accurate fell with a slightly less wide hinge up in the straight grain, just by leaving a thicker hinge that we then have gutted out. It isn't hard to do and it is far more reliable. And of course, without wind, I believe the same approach will offer the most reliable hinging qualities.

Nonsense. What I think is best is so seldom what really IS best, that I do far better just to go with what the authorities (in this case you, and most other faller-types) have been saying all along.

Now the gutted hinge... ... there's ANOTHER technique that I absolutely HATE, but for no good reason. Blind prejudice retaining itself through inbred obstinacy.

But I'll have to go back and re-read ancient threads so as avoid boring you all with my recurring ignorance.

You're not an ignorant man Jed. Just obstinant.

Committed.

He definitely is!

Jed - even though my pictures show us trying to fell low here it doesn’t mean that’s the best place to do it!!

You are a hard man to talk sense into, Jed . Hate the gutted hinge??? Why ever did you come to hold that position?

Husky D said:

He definitely is!

Jed - even though my pictures show us trying to fell low here it doesn’t mean that’s the best place to do it!!

Click to expand...

My obstinacy condemns me do only do what makes sense to my pea-sized cranium, untill my mates best me with the technique/theory that I was too ignorant/stubborn to adopt for myself. And I think that we would all agree that the internet is generally not enough. Burnham's argument, however is a very tough one to refute, and I'm having a very hard time doing it. In fact, I can't. I concede, Yield, Tap-out, call it what you will. I was wrong. So let us move on, shall we?

The gutted hinge is the silliest thing that I have ever heard of in my life because: 1) We are essentially, artificially duplicating what falling a rotten tree with sound sap-wood is like. (Not the worst thing in the world, but, very, very far from the best, as all of our experiences will doubtlessly attest to.) 2) The gutted hinge is based on the theory that it is better to have, MORE wood on the sides, than SOME wood all the way through. And this is false, in my opinion, except, perhaps (I'm trying to be generous, here) in very soft-wooded species like Western Red Cedar; but probably not even there. Let's think about this for half a moment. The theory is predicated on the assumption that leaving more wood in the corners than in the middle is better, because the corners are the strongest part of the hinge. While this is true, the gutted-hinge theory is nonetheless vitiated by the fact that the nature of the tree falling over causes the hinge fibers to fail from the back of the hinge to the front, otherwise the tree could not fall over. It is these sequential failings in the fatter hinge that belies it's inferiority. You see... the trick is to try to hold the tree to the stump as long as you possibly can before the wood fibers fail due to torsion, compression and tension. The fatter hinge that the gutted-hinge produces, precipitates these failures, because it lacks the extra strength that the central wood-fibers in the traditional hinge provides. Since hinge failure occurs sequentially from back to front, it stands to reason that the strongest hinge would be the one which retains THE GREATEST NUMBER OF FIBERS during the duration of the fall. I conted that this almost allways, if not allways occurs in the traditional, and not the gutted hinge.

I'm waiting on bated breath.

I think it is a commonly misunderstood technique - why are you gutting the hinge ?. I can think of 3 ocassions when I would - 1. When I am using a short bar to fell a large tree & would be left with a post in the middle of the tree. 2. Falling a stem - easier to pull as there is less resistance (especially in hardwoods where the heartwood fibres are very stiff) 3. When felling some hardwoods for top grade timber - it helps remove some of the tension in the tree & reduces shake & splitting, especially in free grained trees. On these trees I try & keep the hingewood to an absolute minimum full stop. I would never use it on decayed or side leaning trees - in fact I only use it when I have too.

Gut to have enough, not way more than enough fibers in the right places, not the wrong ones.

Stig mentioned getting Ash, against barber chairs.

Also, when putting a tree into a very tight lay, between other trees.
In that case, you want it to fall as fast as possible while still going in the intended direction.
A gutted hinge is your friend for that.

I will also gut a hinge on trees that I know are going to get caught up and not come to ground. When your winching the tree off the stump and you have to remove the remaining hinge to do so I only have to work the saw on the outer edges of the tree rather than under to get the middle lessening the risk of pinching my bar.

In this technique, the fibers of the hinge's corners aren't supposed to be the strongest (even if they could in some trees), but to be at the most efficient place to control the behavior of the tree during the fall.
We can all agree that a full hinge is stronger than a hollowed one. But when we don't need the strongest as possible, or even if the strongest has an adverse effect(s) like mentioned in the previous posts, gutting the middle allows to lighten the hinge without loosing too much of its functionality.
It's way better to weaken the hinge in the middle than at the sides, because the middle does about nothing for the left-right control (think very poor side leverage or even, neutral fibers), the sides do, like the directional handles on a parachute.

Stig....good input. You guys are shining.

Marc-Antoine....great explanation. Thanks for the input.

Excellent post, M-A.

Jedidiah, I don't know about all that stuff you and B were arguing about but we might gots ya here re the gutted hinge. Fwiw, I'm a fan of its use in the right situation, many of which are mentioned above

Perfectly understand Stig's, Husky D's, and M.A's point about a gutted hinge being great for ripping the tree down through a tight wood.

There's a ton of stuff I know that I still don't know, you guys. That's why I'm on here. Just being a tree-service guy, I love going onto logging forums and threads and stuff, cause you guys cut down more trees in half a year than I'll cut down in my life.

Just trying to understand the reasons for stuff. Can't understand why Burnham would ever want a gutted hinge on a windy day, which, if I remember right, he thought could be advantageous.

I fear I'm becomming a tiresome character.

Jed, when you become a tiresome character you will know, because we will tell you!

Till then, be as Jed as you please.

Agree...your Jededdness has elicited some good technical exchanges from.some good folks.

People who are always concerned about losing their job and a company's rep over crushing a house are obligated to play it safe, all the time.

Work away from targets enough, with wedges, and you learn a ton about hinges and hinging. If a person is always pulling with a rope, especially someone else inputting the force, they will not learn as much.



A good way to learn is to pull your own trees, not rely on someone else. How do you get any good input/ feedback from what you're actions affect? Getting a 1-10 number from the ground-worker, about the input force on the pull line helps. A cutter and a puller can work against each other, easily. The cutter, with no feedback from the puller, can say pull harder, when really they have waaaay too thick of a hinge. Imagine if you needed MA to open and close a door.

When you bang over your own trees, you feel the changing resistance, hear the changing pitch, watch the tree move or not from your own input.


At State Parks, there was a convention of one guy cutting and one guy wedging big trees, often. Division of labor, extra set of eyes, and all that. I'd rather not have to bang over my own trees, but do a better job as a single-actor who destabilizes the tree and inputs the force to move the tree, in concert with gravity and hinge-fiber-resistance-to-bending to make it go to the lay.

My boss was 6'2" and 230-240. For him to input a huge amount of force on the wedges, which i couldn't Feel change during the process (tree moving forward, sitting back, limb-locked, etc). It would be easy, EASY, for me to leave more hinge than needed for a safe fell, on-target, and let him pound it into submission. We were very good and experienced with the gentle persuasion of wedges deeper into back-cuts. Two people doing one person's job...never my idea of ideal. Someone else banging works, but not as well, IMO. Previous to me, the guy in my position was a low-performing 'helper', often, more than a competent, send me out on my own two feet. I can see that it was reasonable to let the boss cut and helper pound wedges, kinda thing. Leave him the no-brainers.

On the other hand, we put lots of trees down fast. More force than needed, but got more done than with the minimum use of input-force, human or otherwise.


It's a balancing act. We were always learning, but we were out there to Do, not training. In the course of doing, we got the best experience. Sometimes you just had to keep cutting it thinner.


If you watch a guy extol the virtues of the his triumph over a side-leaning tree, back-leaning tree, hollow tree, you could easily be lead to believe that there is a huge amount more to the basics than basics need to be.

Talking to my career-logger neighbor, he agrees that people can make a crazy amount out of a facecut that should almost go in dead-on, blind on the farside, fast. He was saying that you can fiddle-frig around with some the facecut for an hour, academically, when really, you're mostly creating a hole in the tree. We all know its a special kinda empty space, but when the tree is 45 degrees over and moving fast, hinges rip. Gravity and inertia. For 95+% of trees, 1,2,3, bang, bang, bang.

Jed said:

Perfectly understand Stig's, Husky D's, and M.A's point about a gutted hinge being great for ripping the tree down through a tight wood.

There's a ton of stuff I know that I still don't know, you guys. That's why I'm on here. Just being a tree-service guy, I love going onto logging forums and threads and stuff, cause you guys cut down more trees in half a year than I'll cut down in my life.

Just trying to understand the reasons for stuff. Can't understand why Burnham would ever want a gutted hinge on a windy day, which, if I remember right, he thought could be advantageous.

I fear I'm becomming a tiresome character.

Click to expand...

I posited that as an alternative I would choose over cutting down low in that unreliable twisty wood we've agreed at this point is more likely than not to pull your fell off the targeted lay, Jed. To stand up to wind, you're saying you want the widest hinge available; i.e. down low in that unreliable wood fiber. I'm saying, the thicker wood at the outer ends of a hinge placed up higher in straight grain will stand up to wind pressures without failing, but if the whole hinge is that thick, it won't move to the face (well, without Murph's skid steer to yank on it fearsomely, perhaps ). So gutting is the answer. Thus, yes, in that particular case it would be advantageous, versus a low hinge in mixed grain wood.

That is quite a different thing than saying a gutted hinge is advantageous in windy conditions, full stop. Get a grip, brother .

Gotcha, B. In the end, I guess I really don't know. Not enough experience falling trees in the wind, thank God.

Definitely hear what Sean's timber-cutter neighbor is preaching too. Those guys all talk the same way, and seem to place a lot more stock in how the back cut is poured into the face, or else in how the wood is cut-up in conjunction with wedging/wind-sway, etc.

Nick: Thanks, mate... means a lot. I've always had you up on a bit of a pedestal since you first appeared in this place.

Thanks for being so accepting of my teasing without getting riled, Jed. You are a good fellow to have around.

Jed is the shit!

I just peeked at this logging "pics" thread and the last three pages have no photos!

Seems more like a logging Scribes topic !!