mortenh
ArboristSite Operative
That's what you're missing, the data you're quoting is not objective. It skewed in the favor of the respective manufacturers. You're trying to give the impression that you've done some sort of empirical testing when what you've done is looked on the manufacturer's sites and put that info into a spreadsheet.
Why put a caveat at the end when you told him to go look at your compiled "data"? You've got all the numbers, how could anyone come to a different conclusion?
That would be fine if that was how the manufacturers arrived at their published weights. As we've seen though, the published weights and the weights in the condition you describe often are different, sometimes significantly so.
I have just as much credible evidence as you, which is zero. What you should say is "Go look at my chart, it will give you a rough idea of the specs for the saws, " rather than quoting "facts".
I am a fan of reality, which your "facts" seem to avoid.
What ever gave you that impression. Not anything I have written, surely!
This is leading nowhere :taped:
I think I'll leave it at that, and let people decide for themselves whether to believe Stihl's and Husqvarna's published performance figures, or believe they are pure fiction. As well as whether or not to believe it when said manufacturers claim that the weight is measured without cutting equipment and fluids.
Last edited: