PCTREE
Treehouser
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/x6QhD9_F3Jg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
ultimate removal setup ??
- Thread starter PCTREE
- Start date
- Replies 20
- Views 3K
The largest company in Denmark tried to use one of those. Heralded it as the next best thing after sliced bread.
Then we didn't hear anything else about it.
Last year we had a job where it would have come in handy, so I called and asked if they'd help us out.
Was told they gave up on it after a while.
Simply too many places in a tight tree where the cutting head won't fit in. There were too many instances where they had to bring in climbers afterwards.
You'll notice the video is made with an open, spreading tree.
Where it works well is for topping windbreaks.
Then we didn't hear anything else about it.
Last year we had a job where it would have come in handy, so I called and asked if they'd help us out.
Was told they gave up on it after a while.
Simply too many places in a tight tree where the cutting head won't fit in. There were too many instances where they had to bring in climbers afterwards.
You'll notice the video is made with an open, spreading tree.
Where it works well is for topping windbreaks.
MasterBlaster
Administrator Emeritus
I wouldn't kick it out of bed for eating crackers!!!
Altissimus
TreeHouser
Design approach similar to a Feller Buncher ...I don't think it's "the answer"... Perhaps a moneymaker in the exact right circumstance.
pete mctree
Treehouser
If the insurance companies ever see that, rates for tree climbers will go through the roof. It needs burying along with the machine 
PCTREE
Treehouser
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #6
Stig I was wondering about how it would work for bushy trees. Appeals to me not needing a climber or if you do having the capability to take off the grapple and fly youself in with the remote. I have a reliable climber but it would sure be nice in years to come to be totally self reliant and still productive
lumberjack
Young man on the go
I think it's a great idea. I sell Mecanil as well as GMT. I own a GMT035 and run it on my excavator. It saves a huge amount of labor on the ground, I can reach up about 16' with it and have used it to take out hundreds going on thousands of trees that could essentially be flopped. It's flipping expensive, but the amount of time and effort it saves is amazing and well worth it.
My theory is a grapple saw may justify a knuckleboom for me in my small town.
Don't see the option to embed on my phone.
http://youtu.be/gJ3cC3uMt_A?list=PLgVC-UFZAmLVLD8L3QqwsMLFC4n7y0rSd
<iframe width="853" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/gJ3cC3uMt_A?list=PLgVC-UFZAmLVLD8L3QqwsMLFC4n7y0rSd" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
My theory is a grapple saw may justify a knuckleboom for me in my small town.
Don't see the option to embed on my phone.
http://youtu.be/gJ3cC3uMt_A?list=PLgVC-UFZAmLVLD8L3QqwsMLFC4n7y0rSd
<iframe width="853" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/gJ3cC3uMt_A?list=PLgVC-UFZAmLVLD8L3QqwsMLFC4n7y0rSd" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Last edited by a moderator:
Altissimus
TreeHouser
My guess is setup is pricey , jes like the Feller Buncher...cutting Trees while sitting down must be awesome
lumberjack
Young man on the go
The Mecanil grapples are larger with longer bars, around the same price as the GMT. Mecanil is better suited I think for the larger knuckle boom cranes with its separate control for each function. The GMT is much faster if your carrier can take advantage of that.
Jed
TreeHouser
I doubt it if "pricey", covers the half of it.
FireFighterZero
Captain Zero!
Like saying that pitch was juuuuust a bit outside.
Limbrat
TreeHouser
Probably a good thing for most of us.
MasterBlaster
Administrator Emeritus
Me too.
treebogan
Treehouser
Like Stig that idea has been tried over here too.There just wern't enough enough open branched Trees to make it productive.If the Company had bought a bigger knuckle boom without a cutting head and employed a climber to rig the bits out,then things might have been different.
I lost a few jobs to them before the company went bust.
I lost a few jobs to them before the company went bust.
CurSedVoyce
California Hillbilly
Paul, I am thi nking your kit would qualify as ultimate... Just saying
Mick!
TreeHouser
They used a similar set up for taking down the Plane trees (similar to your sycamores) that were dying alongside the Canal du Midi. Perfect for that. No wires, road that runs alongside etc.
FJR
Treehouser
I do believe this will be the future. I just don't know if the idea is refined to where it needs to be yet.
Altissimus
TreeHouser
...prob need a better cutter head and a boom height of one hundred feet.
SouthSoundTree-
TreeHouser
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2014
- Messages
- 4,941
Won't work on conifers.
The Rig'em and Roll looks good. Still a climber in the tree.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/kVnOagYKzxo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Didn't see a price. No need for a kboom.
The Rig'em and Roll looks good. Still a climber in the tree.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/kVnOagYKzxo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Didn't see a price. No need for a kboom.
lumberjack
Young man on the go
My theory was a Effer 655 6S/6S HD (or equivalent) at a minimum. The grapple saw is less than a tenth of the price of the truck/crane, and as mentioned you can take the grapple off and use it as a traditional knuckle boom... no biggy.
My figuring is ~$375-400k.
I had one potential customer wanting to put a felling grapple saw on a stick crane. The idea seemed doable using a power pack mounted above the grapple.
My figuring is ~$375-400k.
I had one potential customer wanting to put a felling grapple saw on a stick crane. The idea seemed doable using a power pack mounted above the grapple.
FJR
Treehouser
I agree, I think the effer 655. would be the minimum needed. I can not help but to think though, that I would much prefer the 1750. I believe after that, the 2250 and 2750 require a gvwr of over 80,000 pounds, right?
