Dozer Man
ArboristSite Operative
You all have valid points.
A Cord = 128 cu. ft. of tightly stacked firewood. Whether it measure 4'x4'x8', or 4'x16'x2', or even 4'x32'x1'... It does't matter how you stack it, or cut it, a cord equals 128 cu. ft. of cut, split and stacked firewood. Most will agree on this.
In my area, I've grown up with what we called a "rick" of wood. To me, a "rick" measured 4' x 8' x 16". A full cord would then be 3 "ricks". Now using terminology in the FRACTIONS OF A CORD... my "rick" is universaly known as a "1/3 cord". Until I joined this forum, I'd never heard of a "face cord". Imho, a "face cord" can be cut at different lengths, therefore it is a variable way of measuring a quantity of firewood. Not a good way to use for pricing imho. (I need constants not variables)
Not everyone knows what a "rick" of firewood is...Just as not everone knows what a "face cord" is. My point being that we've all grown up using different terms describing quantities of firewood. None are wrong...but some are different than others.
Most everone knows and agrees what a "cord" of firewood is...128 cu. ft. of stacked firewood. Not surprisingly, this term is very widely used.
Imho, using fractions of a cord (1/8,1/4, 1/3, 1/2...etc.) is a good way to differentiate between quantities of firewood. Therefore I also believe that pricing should always be based on the quantity of firewood being sold. The more you want to buy, the cheaper it should be. BUT... using that same analogy also makes for higher prices for lesser quantities.
12" vs. 16"...After reading all the replies, now I'm having to rethink things. There are some valid points being made. I'll have to process a couple of ricks, one at 12" and the other at 16", and time the cut, split and stack times of both. I'm pretty sure that the 12" splits will be quicker, but I don't think by enough to counter 4/4cord vs. 3/3cord price per cord issue. Especially when you account for saw time. I see it as 33% more sawing=labor,gas,oil,chain life,chain sharpening,bar life,...etc., all these things together will be hard to recoup with just saving a little time in the splitting process. Just my thoughts anyways.
However, I should point out that I burn wood in a big, old fisher stove. It will burn 18"+ splits, and thats burning with splits stacked in the stove front to back. It will handle 20"+ if you stack wood in it from side to side (which I rarely do). My point is that I like the 16" splits for myself, that's why I've always cut to that length. Other than the OWB guys, though, I think I am becoming a minority compared to lengths of firewood these new stoves will burn. Just sharing my dilemma.
Again, thanks for your replies. They are all greatly appreciated. Please keep them coming.
A Cord = 128 cu. ft. of tightly stacked firewood. Whether it measure 4'x4'x8', or 4'x16'x2', or even 4'x32'x1'... It does't matter how you stack it, or cut it, a cord equals 128 cu. ft. of cut, split and stacked firewood. Most will agree on this.
In my area, I've grown up with what we called a "rick" of wood. To me, a "rick" measured 4' x 8' x 16". A full cord would then be 3 "ricks". Now using terminology in the FRACTIONS OF A CORD... my "rick" is universaly known as a "1/3 cord". Until I joined this forum, I'd never heard of a "face cord". Imho, a "face cord" can be cut at different lengths, therefore it is a variable way of measuring a quantity of firewood. Not a good way to use for pricing imho. (I need constants not variables)
Not everyone knows what a "rick" of firewood is...Just as not everone knows what a "face cord" is. My point being that we've all grown up using different terms describing quantities of firewood. None are wrong...but some are different than others.
Most everone knows and agrees what a "cord" of firewood is...128 cu. ft. of stacked firewood. Not surprisingly, this term is very widely used.
Imho, using fractions of a cord (1/8,1/4, 1/3, 1/2...etc.) is a good way to differentiate between quantities of firewood. Therefore I also believe that pricing should always be based on the quantity of firewood being sold. The more you want to buy, the cheaper it should be. BUT... using that same analogy also makes for higher prices for lesser quantities.
12" vs. 16"...After reading all the replies, now I'm having to rethink things. There are some valid points being made. I'll have to process a couple of ricks, one at 12" and the other at 16", and time the cut, split and stack times of both. I'm pretty sure that the 12" splits will be quicker, but I don't think by enough to counter 4/4cord vs. 3/3cord price per cord issue. Especially when you account for saw time. I see it as 33% more sawing=labor,gas,oil,chain life,chain sharpening,bar life,...etc., all these things together will be hard to recoup with just saving a little time in the splitting process. Just my thoughts anyways.
However, I should point out that I burn wood in a big, old fisher stove. It will burn 18"+ splits, and thats burning with splits stacked in the stove front to back. It will handle 20"+ if you stack wood in it from side to side (which I rarely do). My point is that I like the 16" splits for myself, that's why I've always cut to that length. Other than the OWB guys, though, I think I am becoming a minority compared to lengths of firewood these new stoves will burn. Just sharing my dilemma.
Again, thanks for your replies. They are all greatly appreciated. Please keep them coming.