1/3 Diameter Notch Rule

Arborist Forum

Help Support Arborist Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Yep, a rope can come in quite handy. Any rope can break, you have to place it high enough in the tree to have the desired effect, it has to be long enough, etc. Wire rope can be even better but that means heavy equipment or a truck to pull it. I like to anchor the rope slightly off to one side of the desired lay and pull sideways on the rope from the middle, more pull on the tree than just yanking on the end of the rope.


BTW do you own a Tatra 805?
 
Last edited:
100

"I've cut a couple 5ft trees before (red and white oaks) and the 1/4-1/5 of the way in notch worked 100% perfectly."

Was in response to:
"Picture a balanced 30 foot tall 5+ feet in diameter staub. If one were to place a small undercut in one of these guys you would fail. ..............."

******************

How tall were your 5 foot diameter trees and how straight?

My experience has taught me that, on this extreme and somewhat unusual cutting scenario that a shallow face is simply inadequate.

Where this has its best point is that it helps one understand a sliding scale of difficulties. Then, by interpolating in-between, a cutter can see that if nothing else, he can make it easier by adjusting technique.

*************

If you are dropping taller trees with even a little lean with the lean. No sweat.
As you get closer to shorter and straighter, consider a deeper face to make it easier to wedge.

***************

I remember just ignoring some older fallers who would talk about having a 'bucket of wedges'. I thought they must be pretty sloppy going through that much plastic with their chain.

Looking at how flatter long wedges or metal ones drive so much more effectively, then how you need higher lift wedges at times etc. I have changed. I have a five gallon bucket about 2/3rds full of wedges.

You can't do this on a hillside, packing that many wedges, but they can be nice for near the road issues.

On average I'm guessing the oaks I dropped where 95-110 feet tall. And do you think we would be logging them if the oaks wheren't straight?lol BTW......I am a pro logger........but I ain't going to carry a bucket full of wedges around in the woods......the axe, saw, and about 5 wegdes I have with me plus something to drink is enough for me to carry.....:greenchainsaw: :cheers:
 
sILlogger. I have a question about that last one. It had a pretty good base swell. Would it have been a good candidate for trimming all the buttresses off European style like I was asking about earlier in the thread? Also, I don't see a hinge. Maybe it's covered up by all the chips.

Edit... just saw your comment... no notch no hinge. Interesting. I would have thought that would result in a bunch of fiber pull when it got close to letting go.

Ian

AHH...

"Spur Cutting": but there was no fibre holding it...bore in the front and leave to 2 corners holding and leave the back...come back in and cut the 2 front spurs...get the saw out before it sets down on the saw...cut the back loose and the tree falls over...i use it sometimes on heavy leaners(2 spurs) and some high quality stuff in which i want no fibre pull...ive cut red oaks before with a good butt swell and left 7-8 "spurs"-looks like a burger king crown!!
 
another thing that i think determines the proper depth of the notch is the growth form of a tree...

a tree with a known lean in the desired direction would not require as deep of a notch...

but a tree that is nearly perfectly balanced would need a deeper notch...atleast that is how i do things
 
Interesting, I've never heard of spur cutting before. I've read about quite a few techniques that I would like to eventually try but I think I'm gonna leave that one alone... LOL.

Ian
 
Interesting, I've never heard of spur cutting before. I've read about quite a few techniques that I would like to eventually try but I think I'm gonna leave that one alone... LOL.

Ian

ha ha...it is actually kind of an ole timers form of cutting..alot of the veneer guys still use it..but not too many...i only use it on rare occasion..heavy leaners...or just to do it.....you have to watch out because sometimes it will pull the whole root out of the ground in the back!!
 
it get's worse.. even when you "know" all this stuff, it still take practise, practise and practise...even then every now and then, they still go astray...

And it's harder on hardwoods. I got really spoiled going from hardwoods in Minnesota to softwoods in Colorado. Softwoods are so much easier to read. Still, it takes practice and there is always a twist in the plan somewhere. Now I don't fall a lot of trees and I really have to think about them for a while.

Practice, practice, practice, you are absolutely right, Andy. Every tree you take down is "practice" since every one is different.

Mark
 
Small face and Barber Chair

This photo is of a cross cut stump from maybe 60+ years before.

One way to risk a barber chair event is to place too small an undercut and wedge hard.

I cannot state that was what happened here but it seems likely.
 
Those were the days

Well put Smoke, if ever there was a time to follow the rule of thirds it was back before there were pull cords on saws. Huge trees, mass lean, how else could you salvage what you cut if it were not for a decent face. Misery whip in hand a deep face not only would initiate the fall but also lessen serious chance of chair. Staying at the stump and chasing the backcut with skip chisel though is quite different than a misery whip. Smaller trees, faster saws maybe we don't need face cuts?
:dizzy:
Sweet pic, that supposedly is the biggest tree ever recorded in Washington state, to bad they cut it down.

:cheers: cheers www.treecycleseattle.com
 
Last edited:
The moral of this story is don't ever get locked into a one size (or method) fits all deal

Every one is a little different.

I think more in at least 80% of the tree diameter as the width of the notch (don't know if I'm wording that right) and get into the heartwood, then 1/3 in or whatever doesn't really matter. Usually less, but could be a bit more than 1/3 in.

But I'm all about the Scandanavian/Game of Logging/whatever you want to call it style now. Open face-bore in for the backcut.

I didn't always use that style, and in fact I cut a scrubby maple for firewood recently on a very steep hill and tried a Humboldt and it worked great thank you very much.
 
I cut down a pine tree today that was bigger than my bar. It was already topped and limbed so it was just a 12-14' stem. Good to try something new on (maybe). I did the face cut and then bored the center out of the tree through the face. Then I did my back cut from both sides. Did a bad job of making the two back cuts meet in the middle but it did go down exactly in the direction of the face cut. Unfortunately, my face cut was a little (lot?) off direction wise and the top ended up about 6' from where I wanted it. Had the stub been 3 feet longer, it would have crushed a swing set. LOL... It's amateur hour at the House of Haywire ! :greenchainsaw:

Ian
 
I have always wondered why the manuals tell you to make the felling notch 1/3 the diameter of the tree and not more. When you make the notch the weight of tree above the notch is supported by the uncut lower portion. Therefore an overturning moment is created to cause the tree to fall towards the notch. When you begin cutting the opposite side and reach 1/3 that overturning moment no longer exists. From that point on the moment begins to turn the tree back towards the cutting side. It would seem to me that it would be better to make the notch 1/2 the diameter to avoid this from happening. The 1/3 notch seems to work. The only explanation that I would have is that when you make the notch, the overturning moment causes the flexible tree to shift its weight towards the notch. This is enough to cause the tree to fall towards the notch, even though the back cut is bigger.
I was taught in the Marines at MCES- Court House Bay, Camp Lejeune,NC while doing precision felling for tank traps, abatis', and diversion to always use the law of 1/3s and never more. In case the wind shifts and it does quickly, the more holding wood you've got the better. If you make a 50% deep notch then all you got stabilizing the tree is 50%, and 75% is better ya know and safer. We were shown how at times when needed, trees could be climbed, and rigged towards the half way mark with dynamite, C4 or preferably Det. Cord to strategically drop the tops in the road to block em(called an abatis) or even dropped on the enemy after they trip a wire from driving through! How's that for a solution for the customers house who has a problem gettin the check book out?
 
Every one is a little different.

I think more in at least 80% of the tree diameter as the width of the notch (don't know if I'm wording that right) and get into the heartwood, then 1/3 in or whatever doesn't really matter. Usually less, but could be a bit more than 1/3 in.

But I'm all about the Scandanavian/Game of Logging/whatever you want to call it style now. Open face-bore in for the backcut.

I didn't always use that style, and in fact I cut a scrubby maple for firewood recently on a very steep hill and tried a Humboldt and it worked great thank you very much.

Whut's a Humboldt?
 
lol

a secret...:greenchainsaw:

"search" is your friend...

LOL.....only the selected ones know what it is........ssshhhhhhh............especially over here on the east cost....people look at me funny when I cut a humbolt in a pine.......but it works in pine/softwood.....conventional for hardwoods.:greenchainsaw: :givebeer:
 
Back
Top