Would You Climb This One?

Arborist Forum

Help Support Arborist Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

woodchux

Addicted to ArboristSite
Joined
May 8, 2005
Messages
1,156
Reaction score
59
Location
South Carolina
attachment.php

attachment.php
 
Need more info than that as well as more pics of that hollow. How high do you need to climb it? What are you intending to do to the tree? How much of the tree is hardwood at it's weakest point? A general rule of thumb is 10% of hardwood to be safe to climb but also differs by species as well as other things.
 
nasty

That looks pretty bad. I would prob have to try and get a crane to it. Like they said earlier if i had a good/excellent tie in point in a surrounding tree i would. If i were you i would stick with a crane or bucket. If you dont have a bucket work the price of a crane in your bid.

This pic is one i did the other day. It looked real bad but i had no prob.
 
Last edited:
Climb020 said:
A general rule of thumb is 10% of hardwood to be safe to climb but also differs by species as well as other things.

Wow, I've never ever heard of such a liberal rule, many will fail long before 10%.

That hollow is close to the ground, that tree is also cracked and decayed, to even consider your life on it is just nuts especially when it's such easy access for a bucket or crane etc... look at the pic, that's the front yard with a car right near it.

No wonder this is one of the most dangerous jobs in the world ... advice like that just helps it along. :jawdrop:

Not long ago a young guy died here in Sydney, apparently ignored the fruiting bodies and swelling at the base ... tree collapsed him in it. Was a great climber but perhaps poor arborist, didn't evaluate the risk very well.

Today I bid a lightening struck half dead, first thing I looked for was bucket access ... got that so the rest is easy.
 
woodchux said:
when i first read the title i assumed impossible spots, yea unsafe to climb if you got wires there you got some chance of equipment, yea do not climb, more info would be good, who is da client? why is the tree stll standing? , whats the power company say will they assist? who is involved in this debate about climbing this thing, what #s are out there on this, are any #s accepted at this time
 
Climb020 said:
A general rule of thumb is 10% of hardwood to be safe to climb but also differs by species as well as other things.
Unless Woodchux is a complete moron, the thread is a joke. Even with a safe tie in, there's no way this tree is safe to climb. It's ready to implode on itself just standing there. One good chomp from an ant and it's comming down. A woodchuck wouldn't even climb this thing.
The 10% rule has me interested. I've heard of various thumb rules before, but that one sounds like a thumb up the a$$ rule. LOL! :dizzy:
Good response Ekka.
 
I would climb this with hopes of prunning and restoring this tree. Ofcourse it would be a gaffless climb, I would never want to create any wounds in my Restoration attempt. The rule of thumb is 10%, so I should be ok climbing up the tree, and with over 10% of sapwood remaining the tree should bounce back with plenty of new growth next spring.:monkey:
 
diltree said:
I would climb this with hopes of prunning and restoring this tree. Ofcourse it would be a gaffless climb, I would never want to create any wounds in my Restoration attempt. The rule of thumb is 10%, so I should be ok climbing up the tree, and with over 10% of sapwood remaining the tree should bounce back with plenty of new growth next spring.:monkey:

The joke thread is two over and one down. Some people put no value on life it seems. Wear a parachute and hope it has time to open. It is not whether you can get away with climbing it. It is assessing the risk properly and putting into perspective the consequence of your action. Don't climb it as has been said use a crane or get a professional.
 
diltree said:
I would climb this with hopes of prunning and restoring this tree. Ofcourse it would be a gaffless climb, I would never want to create any wounds in my Restoration attempt. The rule of thumb is 10%, so I should be ok climbing up the tree, and with over 10% of sapwood remaining the tree should bounce back with plenty of new growth next spring.:monkey:
Ha, ha sweet response!!

But seriously, I wouldn't climb that thing-looks like it might disintigrate just looking at it!
 
diltree said:
I would climb this with hopes of prunning and restoring this tree. Ofcourse it would be a gaffless climb, I would never want to create any wounds in my Restoration attempt. The rule of thumb is 10%, so I should be ok climbing up the tree, and with over 10% of sapwood remaining the tree should bounce back with plenty of new growth next spring.:monkey:
Very funny, actually some ISA cert. people on this site would believe this. Where exactly does one draw the line? Where does the desire to preserve horribly compromised trees stop and the desire to preserve human life kick in? I remember this 10% "rule" from an earlier talk here about removing hazard trees around powerlines, can't remember the poster. Stop the insanity. On a related note, it will be intersting to see how many "safe" trees in the PNW now get cut down, after so many of thier "safe' brothers came smashing down onto powerlines, houses, cars etc recently. Now even treehuggers have the fear, the news has been full of nasty tree stuff, good, and good for business as well.
 
Nope

Climbed some sketchy trees in my day, earlier days more sketchy than now for sure.... But they say with age comes wisdom. For me, it's not just looking just at the wound and immediately associated rot but;

1) where the wound/weakness is on the stem
2) how much wieght above and how distributed(vertically or out on a vector)
3) what associated hazards are nearby, power lines, house, etc...
4) type of tree, wood structure

Probably more, but that's what came to mind initially. I remember taking down a completely hollow Silver Maple in a municipal zoo, 14" DBH. Hollow section ran from ground to a height of about 10', small compact crown with only two central leaders. Had to piece it down into roughly 10'x10' area. Knew it was hollow from sounding with my axe before climbing and over ruled the bosses idea of drop hitchin' the tops into the stem, duh. Went w/o difficultly, if running a tad long for the bosses preferences. I did install a safety in another healthy stem for the crown work. After down measured 1.5" of healthy wood around the complete circumference, rest air space.:jawdrop: Still have a 3' section on my porch for a walkin' stick, umbrella holder from that tree. Would I do that one again, now? Maybe, depending on the totality of the situation. Certainly not if the outter circumference was breached by a large open or through & through wound, large spreading crown, power lines in/near crown, etc...

As a side note to that tree TD, there was a little added stress to the situation with Timber Wolves, Coyotes and Big Horn Sheep in the neighboring pens that were less than enthusiastic about our noisy presence. Needless to say dropping pieces on the other side of the fences was out of the question, at least as far as my groundies sake was concerned.:D

Crane or bucket that bad boy and incorporate it into your bid. You'll be happy you did. That's definitely not one to low ball.
 
My source for the info is a TCIA Pocket Guide: Identifying Hazard Trees.
I will now recite a paragraph to illistrate my point of 10% as rule of thumb but like I said you need to take into concideration other factors in the tree.

"The table below shows the minumum wood thickness that constitutes a 50% strength loss. When using this table, remember to subtract the bark thickness from both the diamter measurements (D-tape value minus two times the bark thickness). Stregnth loss will be greater (trunk weaker) if there are cracks, cavity opening or other weakening factors. In those cases, the thickness of sound wood for a given trunk diamter will need to be greater than the values listed for it to be climbable.

Diameter of Stem/limb * Thickness of sound wood *
10" 1"
20" 2"
30" 3"
40" 4"
50" 5"

*Not including bark"

If you still do not agree with what I have said then go and take up your case with TCIA being you must be more educated then the indiviuals that work there.

As well that tree can still be climbed but as the ways to go about doing appartly do not matter to jokers on this thread. Improvise and think outside the box it isn't rocket science here. I have done tree like it before and probally will do them again. If you are too incompetant to do the job then pass it on.
 
adkranger said:
hollow Silver Maple in a municipal zoo, 14" DBH.

After down measured 1.5" of healthy wood around the complete circumference, rest air space.

14" DBH = 7" radius

1.5"/7" = 21% wall thickness, now imagine 10%! Then chuck in a crack, hollow and decay...

Good advice, just did that to illustrate the numbers for others.
 
Ekka said:
14" DBH = 7" radius

1.5"/7" = 21% wall thickness, now imagine 10%! Then chuck in a crack, hollow and decay...

Good advice, just did that to illustrate the numbers for others.

Apparently you did not read my whole thread. If cracks/hollows exist there needs to be more then 10%. But argueing doesn't matter. As you see it I am just a kid that doesn't know the difference between my :censored: and a hole in the ground.
 
Climb020 said:
"The table below shows the minumum wood thickness that constitutes a 50% strength loss. When using this table, remember to subtract the bark thickness from both the diamter measurements (D-tape value minus two times the bark thickness). Stregnth loss will be greater (trunk weaker) if there are cracks, cavity opening or other weakening factors. In those cases, the thickness of sound wood for a given trunk diamter will need to be greater than the values listed for it to be climbable.

Diameter of Stem/limb * Thickness of sound wood *
10" 1"
20" 2"
30" 3"
40" 4"
50" 5"

*Not including bark"

If you still do not agree with what I have said then go and take up your case with TCIA being you must be more educated then the indiviuals that work there.

If I am reading this correctly it appears that they are giving a stem diameter then a wall thickness. which is a little confusing for some readers and potentially puts people who mis-interpret in the firing line.

I would find any publication rendering a 10% wall thickness rather liable if they do suggest it's "safe".

But going back to the original info as you posted and quoted above. Remember, it's diameter and WALL THICKNESS

50" dia is 25" radius.
5" wall thickness on a 25" radial stem is 20%.


And another, 20" dia is 10" radius.
2" wall thickness on a 10" radius is hello ... 20%


It would be likely in a test and in verticle compression that a solid piece of wood say 20" dia and 3' long compressed to the point it busted would infact be twice as strong as a piece of hollow wood with a 2" thick wall ... that is likely and hence why in engineering tube is used a lot.

However, what engineers do is have uniform structures generally more solid from the foundation up.

What that tree has is a base that is ?% weaker lower and going up to most likely to an increased strength wood as the wall thickness gets larger. Imagine a hollow fishing rod being used the wrong way around.

Also, these compression tests dont take into consideration horizontal leveraged stresses.

I checked the website and that pocket guide sells for $4 ... surely you'd take that into account as usually you get what you pay for. Go and read some real books.
 
Back
Top