Tutorial: make your own raker depth gauge supported by software tool

[hannes69]

Here some numbers showing why gauge type 2 is mathematically ( ) a good amount better than type 1 (using the Stihl 3/8 RM chain):
Let´s assume a default hard wood setting (a hard wood setting can be used with soft wood without a problem, vice versa maybe not). The new chain is prepared for hard wood, it has a raker depth of 25 mil and a cutting angle of 6.3°. To maintain the hard wood setting, the gauge tool should limit the cutting angle to 0.3° extra but nothing more, so a maximum of 6.6° (set by me in this example like that).
Type 1 gauge is designed with the software´s defaults (47 mil thickness, 566 mil pvot length).
Type 2 gauge is designed with 49 mil thickness to achieve the 6.6° maximum criteria.

So these two designs are comparable now.
Type 1 has a mean value for the cutting angle of 5.8° during the chain´s life, type 2 6.2°. So type 2 maintains the initial cutting angle as mean value to 98.5%, type 1 only to 92%.
Compared to its mean value, type 1 has a variation of +13 % and - 24%, type 2 a variation of + 6 % / -12%. That means half of the relative error! So type 2 has more 'stable' values.
When looking at the relation between aimed value and lowest value, type 1 achieves a minimum of -30%, type 2 only -12%.
Of course both types will work well in reality, but type 2 has a remarkable lead compared to type 1 I think.
Leaving alone the 'small' problem of realizing a 49 mil material thickness (at least for me)
The working principle of type 2 seems better (at least in this case)
Here the numbers for this default hard wood setting type 2:


BTW, if someone wonders about the odd value of 5.9° in between 6.3° and 6.2° for a cutter wearing of 20 mil (comparable 'glitch' in other examples):
This is due to the initial raker depth of 25 mil for a new chain. For 0 mil wearing = new chain this leads to a cutting angle of 6.3°. Because the chain already has this depth. If the chain would have a higher raker, the gauge tool in this example would lead to a raker depth of 21.7 mil and a cutting angle of 5.5° fo the 0 mil wearing point, if we would have to file the raker down from a higher point to our initial value.
The default value of 25 mil helps us at this point

When looking at the numbers of this default hard wood setup type 2 gauge, I consider it and name it "constant cutting angle raker depth gauge", it meets my definition of 'constant' .

 

[Westboastfaller]

"If you file or grind a chain with left hand cutters intentionally made shorter than right hand cutters and set the rakers accordingly with a progressive depth gauge tool, the saw will still cut straight."

I couldn't see the quotation marks in your originally post. (Small device, no glasses on)

I didn't notice until now that the top half above^^^ ..from your first post was a quote from 'Pogo' that you 'paste coped' over opposed to using the quote button.

I certainly wasn't referring to filing off half the teeth on one side as a practice. ...er..um ..saying you are saying it a 'good' practise.

The above (see my red highlight) was not my quote.

{More on the statement above (top of post) that was just established as not being yours}
I used the word 'CAN' as a loose quote to descride the statement above which equates to just that.

I have no problem apologizing to you or anyone that takes issue with a "loose quote" or an insensitive joke ect but I do expect you/them to hold yourself (in this case) in the same regards as you 'ask of others'.

See below post in in red....'good practice' was not my quote.
I said 'practice', I then later said you were being literal but obviously you deliberately took it out of context.
Enough of the petty crap and quote me if you got something to talk about.

 

[Westboastfaller]

Does not mean you CAN as a practice because it was done on a new Stihl chain.

*Note: "practise" to mean working with uneven cutters at all different time life's with an assortment of chain.

I don't think I wrote anything that implied it was good practice to take all the cutters on one side down to half their original length.

 

[lambs]

Hey friend,
I just noted for the record that the text being referenced as mine was not. That's all.

 

[Westboastfaller]

I think the relevant figures are your +/- spread, in conjunction with where they fall in relation to each other through the life of the chain.

You can have a more desired scenario with a lower percent average to your desired target.You could have a 'plummet and spike'with an equal +/- either way, can you not? ..resulting in 100% average of your target value, 6.3° (average of 6.3 over the life of the chain)
....But could end up with a greater +/-spread.

You had a +/- error variants of +6% / -12% with your type 2 gauge.
With a cool 6.2 average at 98% of the original 6.3° The later two not being relevant at all and possibly misleading.
Its only the top & the bottom (spread) *AND...where they happen in relation to each other over the life of the chain that matters here.
Just sayin'

K.I.S.S. lol

EDIT

 

[hannes69]

I think the relevant figures are your +/- spread, in conjunction with where they fall in relation to each other through the life of the chain.

You can have a more desired scenario with a lower percent average to your desired target.You could have a 'plummet and spike'with an equal +/- either way, can you not? ..resulting in 100% average of your target value, 6.3° (average of 6.3 over the life of the chain)
....But could end up with a greater +/-spread.

I always look at both numbers, the average and the spreading. You always shoot for average = aimed and spreading as low as possible. There are extremes possible when dealing with such mathematical models: you maybe achieve average = aimed value, but the spreading is untolerable large. Or you have a small spreading but out of some reasons you can´t achieve your aimed value as average in parallel.
And it´s always the question what exactly you are looking at and under which conditions / restrictions.
In the example above I made the restriction 'maximum cutting angle overshoot of 0.3°'. When you change this restriction to 0.1° or 3.0° some numbers quickly change

But that´s not that important in detail. I only wanted to give a short example to show in numbers WHY I think that gauge type 2 is better than type 1 Beside the fact that it is easier to produce (when having the right metal thickness).

 

[Westboastfaller]

I only wanted to give a short example to show in numbers WHY I think that gauge type 2 is better than type 1 Beside the fact that it is easier to produce (when having the right metal thickness).

Right, your gauge is certainly better and you met your primary objective before you stared this thread. This being a gauge that will maintain a much higher cutting angle nearing the last third of the chain without drastically disrupting the front portion and possibly making the chain undesirable. You have certainly proven this to be factual. This mentioned above being your original agenda with the expectation that people keep the cutting teeth even.

Many have expressed that its just not practical. Generally the only hand filers that keep the teeth even are experienced ones that don't use a raker gauge. That's how they were taught and that's what they teach. As long as they hold a consistent angle then that works well. An 'old school' approach.

Now we are looking at a secondary objective of improving the numbers
and tightening the +/- variance to ensure no cutting issues will occur.
Looks like a custom dual gauge per hard/soft option may be the answer in cases to achieve a lower +/- variance of that than a one option gauge can possibily accomplish.

*Cutting issues,
Early symptoms of this will include:

-Very mild surging (mindful of rev change & 'the feel' of how its cutting.
-Bigger cuts not linning up perfectly

Move advanced:
-Stronger surging
-Binding in the bigger cuts with the use of felling/bucking dogs.

-Cutting to one side without felling dogs.

*NOTE: Extremely advanced issue.

-frustration is now leading to anger

-Operator grabs pull cord, spins around three times like an Olympic discus champion and launches the saw off the hillside...

 

[hannes69]

Right, your gauge is certainly better and you met your primary objective before you stared this thread. This being a gauge that will maintain a much higher cutting angle nearing the last third of the chain without drastically disrupting the front portion, with s result of making the chain undesirable. You have certainly proven this to be factual.

Thanks for the compliment

Generally the only hand filers that keep the teeth even are experienced ones that don't use a raker gauge. That's how they were taught and that's what they teach. As long as they hold a consistent angle then that works well. An 'old school' approach.

Yes, if you were taught the 'total manual' method, this certainly will work out very well, if practised enough.
I´m more the type of 'new school' I haven´t learned hand filing a chain, and maybe I won´t ever learn it. I go to the forest with two chains sharpened by me with an electrical grinder and rakers filed down with my depth gauge tool. Chain one has its work done until lunch break, chain two does its job till the end of the working day When cutting into a stone, one chain has to do the work for the rest of the day, when cutting into another stone - home sweet home So no need for hand filing for me, and if there´s no need then maybe there´s not a huge interest in learning it... And I like a sort of perfection very much. The grinder can surely hold a certain sharpening angle better than me. I also like some purist approaches in other fields, but in the matter of saw chains I prefer the little helpers.

Looks like a custom dual gauge per hard/soft option may be the answer in cases to achieve a lower +/- variance of that than a one option gauge can possibily accomplish.

Of course different gauges will still be needed for different wood types, these progressive gauges are not adjustable.
Within one setup it´s surely a question of personal thinking of accuracy. There are people out there absolutely satisfied with a 25 mil constant depth gauge, using it for hard and soft wood. Others have this constant depth gauge with more than one setting and use 25 mil for hard wood and 30 or 35 mil for soft wood. Others have the Husky/Stihl/FOP progressive ones and can work with the given soft and hard settings. And others want something better than this and have met in this thread So the next options are personalized type 1 or type 2 gauges, probably as dual setup. Gauge 2 at least is so linear that I personally don´t think about using the dual setup in the sense of one setting for the first and one setting for the second half of the chain but rather the already known hard and soft setting actually used for hard and soft wood. Type 1 is weaker at the second half of chain´s life, so there maybe is some potential in using two settings for the two halves.
A matter of taste once more.

Operator grabs pull cord, spins around three times like an Olympic discus champion and launches the saw of the hillside...

Though understandable in this situation, that´s something to avoid, unless using a 'chinese fire cracker' (so we call them in Germany) instead of a 'real' chainsaw

 

[hannes69]

Hmm, it´s getting calm here, does that mean that some / all of you guys changed to the 'active mode' and you´re busy with raker depth gauge construction?

 

[Westboastfaller]

No! The available data expands the knowledge.
I have replaced an existing gauge (that I no longer own anyway) with an improved virtual gauge. Now I'm better prepared for more virtual cutting or otherwise.

I'm not activity cutting for a living and haven't done any cutting for 13 months. I also have 13 months of Sobriety opposed to the previous 4 years which brought me 'interrupted sobriety' for my efforts. As Einstein said:
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over & over and expecting different results".
Change was needed in multiple areas of my life.

From the info I have seen thus far, dispite not seeing any of the common 3/8, 7/32 chain but by following the data patterns with the stihl chains and different gauges I could give a thesis on the whole subject. This of course would offer
an alternative for "Joe Shmoe and the bumper chain," (or high level pro's) with the saddle gauge also.

Do you want to go first? This is of course, without talking graphically about cutting.
Either way, I'll do one.

 

[PogoInTheWoods]

I could give a thesis on the whole subject.

NO!!!!! LOL

And forgive my not bringing any new numbers to the thread yet. I've suddenly been swamped with saw rebuilds and busy with yard work now that the weather has stabilized somewhat in Ohio. We've gone from the wood stove to the A/C in just under two weeks and priorities have changed accordingly.

I did attempt cursory measurements of some Oregon LG and must admit it will be a tedious task to obtain super accurate numbers with a simple straight edge and a digital caliper. I spent additional time searching online hoping to maybe stumble across some specifications but came up empty there. If anyone (aside from the chain manufacturers themselves) would possibly have that information archived somewhere it may be @Philbert.

And if we must have a thesis competition, can it please be done as file attachments instead of more repetition in the thread itself of everyone's individual interpretation of the same basic premise? You can only beat a dead horse so much before your uneven cutters will miraculously begin cutting in a straight line with appropriately maintained rakers...., sober or not! (Congrats on that, btw. Been there. Done that.)

 

[hannes69]

The available data expands the knowledge.

I hope so.

Now I'm better prepared for more virtual cutting or otherwise.

Okay. Virtual cutting. What a hobby this may be ?

dispite not seeing any of the common 3/8, 7/32 chain

Hm. With 7/32 you surely mean a 7/32" file (that´s 5,5 mm here in metric land). My 3/8" Stihl Rapid Micro chain is normally filed with such a file, I personally use a grinder with a 3/16" grinding wheel (the 'normal' size for this pitch). So what do you mean exactly here with 'common' ? At least in Germany the 3/8" Stihl Rapid Micro or Rapid Super are THE common chains
Stihl is a common manufacturer, 3/8 pitch is common, Rapid Micro is 'normal' cutter profile (semi chisel), Rapid Super is 'normal' cutter profile (full chisel), both are round filed with a 7/32" file (at least at the first half of the chain´s life, for the second half maybe a smaller file will fit better).
So my thinking was: By accident I own two common chain setups, so I could make use of them as examples: one chain from the pro or semipro side, the other chain from the hobby side. .325 is in between and .404 is absolutely pro.
So I thougth that it was a good fit to start with.
Or maybe another misunderstanding here? Don´t know for sure.

Either way, I'll do one.

Yes

 

[hannes69]

And forgive my not bringing any new numbers to the thread yet.

No problem. The word 'yet' is the critical one here

I did attempt cursory measurements of some Oregon LG and must admit it will be a tedious task to obtain super accurate numbers with a simple straight edge and a digital caliper.

The measurements don´t mean fun work, yes. I used a straight edge, a digital caliper, a pencil, a piece of paper, a 90° bent metal sheet a straight piece of metal sheet, a desk and many repeated measurements. Some of the measurements can´t be made directly due to some limitations, there´s some need of some helping tools.
When taking the time and thinking about it, the results should be accurate enough, I´m sure.

I spent additional time searching online hoping to maybe stumble across some specifications but came up empty there.

I found no useful data as well. Landed at a virgin´s area here...

If anyone (aside from the chain manufacturers themselves) would possibly have that information archived somewhere it may be @Philbert.

The manufacturers probably aren´t so pleased about releasing this sort of information. Philbert left this discussion here early because it seems that he didn´t like the fact that I critisized him. I personally have absolute no problem with Philbert and would be pleased if he reenters into the discussion again.

And if we must have a thesis competition

Everything is possible, nothing is necessary

 

[PogoInTheWoods]

Just a quick note to clarify that Stihl 3/8 chain typically calls for a 13/64 file and may be what the 3/8 x 7/32 reference is getting at. .Not sure that has much bearing on calculations anyway aside from the shape of the cutter being slightly different between Stihl and say Oregon. They both get ground with the same sized wheel, so... Some Oregon LG specifications should shed light there.

And far be it from me to speak for Philbert, but I highly doubt his lack of continued participation is based in and of itself on being criticized. He is one of the most helpful and highly regarded contributors to several forums on a variety of topics and has been for many years. Had you known that, perhaps his initial presence would have been addressed a bit more respectfully in general by you and would have resulted in additional participation. He is quite well versed on the subject of saw chain and is a valued asset to any such discussion. I think he just got bored rather quickly with the attitude in this thread and moved on to other, more friendly areas of interest. I would also respectfully suggest that this is the likely reason for so little traffic in the thread now.

That said...

And after a bit more work with the numbers for different chain types and a few of the Type 2 tools having been made and used for a while with quantifiable and consistent real-world results..., (and realistic opinions about their performance), I personally believe it would be a good idea to re-launch the subject in a new thread with a much simpler introduction to the topic and none of the math in order to reach (and connect with) the largest audience possible based on the sheer simplicity of the type 2 idea. Anyone interested in the details could obviously be referred to this thread.

The beauty of the tool and the reason for anyone to be interested is the elegance of its simplicity, not the complexity of all the variables required to arrive at such a solution.

It will take some time, but I predict the general idea will mature and eventually gain a respectable degree of acceptance by many who sharpen their own chains..., mostly just plain ol' folks who simply want to get the wood cut. Seems like it would be quite gratifying to reach those folks.

Okay, so it was not 'just a quick note'. Got a little carried away. Sorry.

 

[Philbert]

I did attempt cursory measurements of some Oregon LG and must admit it will be a tedious task to obtain super accurate numbers with a simple straight edge and a digital caliper.

$7 on eBay, plus some aluminum angle.
https://www.arboristsite.com/commun...cator-feedback-on-marketability.295188/page-2

Philbert

 

[hannes69]

Had you known that, perhaps his initial presence would have been addressed a bit more respectfully in general by you and would have resulted in additional participation.

At some point in this thread I ran into strong head wind coming from different people at the same time, I felt offended, the discussion got heated up. If I didn´t treat some people in the right manner there in this context, I apologize for that.

I think he just got bored rather quickly with the attitude in this thread and moved on to other, more friendly areas of interest.

Beside the time window spoken of above, I have the feeling of a friendly tone and attitude in this thread.

I would also respectfully suggest that this is the likely reason for so little traffic in the thread now.

I don´t know. Maybe. I think there are more reasons. I have the impression that some people don´t like the software part of this story (and being mentioned this in the thread title already). Some don´t like the arrogance of the thread opener The topic itself is complex in several parts. Many are interested in the cutter sharpening process but neglect the importance of the rakers.

I personally believe it would be a good idea to re-launch the subject in a new thread with a much simpler introduction to the topic and none of the math in order to reach (and connect with) the largest audience possible based on the sheer simplicity of the type 2 idea.

Yes Now it is a work in progress. I mean, I didn´t lie with the thread title. You can already make your own raker depth gauge, the software helps you. It is not as convenient as it maybe will be possible in the future.
This is another problem of this thread: There are some things mixed up. General discussions, specialised discussions. Some parts are prepared and you can start directly, other parts aren´t finished yet. But that´s the point of my idea: I found something out, made some pre work, presented it, and now it can be further developed. Like I took BobL´s work and developed some aspects of it further. It is a community project. At least at this point of development. The software is involved for several reasons, it helps presenting some aspects (like the tables with different numbers, the chain pictures), it always will help for special needs (a 'real' personalised raker depth gauge) and it will help while measuring chains to check the results in combination with a test depth gauge tool.
I maintained the type 1 on purpose. It is the 'well known' one. And we already see the ideas coming up of 'tuning' a given one. I wanted to show, that you can calculate this buayble one and make it yourself with personalized soft and hard settings. And I wanted to present a new idea, the type 2. I have the impression until now that there is some scepsis towards type 2 and more trust in type 1. Type 1 is offered officially by several manufacturers, type 2 is a 'garage production' of some German guy, so ....

The beauty of the tool and the reason for anyone to be interested is the elegance of its simplicity, not the complexity of all the variables required to arrive at such a solution.

Yes That maybe is the misunderstanding on some points here, I am very convinced about this solution and this is perceived as arrogant... The tool is simple.
But in the meantime it is necessary to find some people having some 'zeal' in this matter as already mentioned earlier And when developing something, we have to talk about variables and so on.
All of these aspects are now mixed up and I can´t change it.
In the end, yes, a new thread should be useful. Some explanations, some photos, a list of common chains associated with the corresponding numbers to create the gauge with 'soft' and 'hard' presets (the novice mode). And a hint towards this thread, when there is the need / wish for specialization (the advanced mode).

Okay, so it was not 'just a quick note'. Got a little carried away. Sorry.

No problem, it´s ok like that.

 

[hannes69]

$7 on eBay, plus some aluminum angle.
https://www.arboristsite.com/commun...cator-feedback-on-marketability.295188/page-2

Thanks for chiming in again, Philbert
Your shown tool can measure the raker depth of a chain of course.
To make use of my calculator dealing with different chains, we need some measurements of these chains additionally to the raker depth, e.g. distance between raker and rivet, distance between raker and tip of the cutter,... These needed measurements are shown in the start post, a pic showing the tab 'chain' in the calculator. The problem is to measure some of these with normal tools accurately enough. The rivet diameter e.g. is very easy, others are not so easy to manage...

 

[Westboastfaller]

Hm. With 7/32 you surely mean a 7/32" file (that´s 5,5 mm here in metric land). My 3/8" Stihl Rapid Micro chain is normally filed with such a file, I personally use a grinder with a 3/16" grinding wheel (the 'normal' size for this pitch). So
I hope so.

Yes! As Pogo has explained, the specs calls for a13/64 or 6.2 mm file. Oregon, Carlton,
Windsor,Husqvarna and Woodland pro (Bailey's brand) I believe all call for a 7/32 file /6.5mm in.375 (3/8) I'm talking manufacturer's specs.
Same 3/16 disk..yes.

On a tiny tiny little very short side note, if I may:
I use 4 different file sizes ranging from 3/16 to 1/4
It was very common for me to
have new files in three sizes in my bag. I like to take the time before the first days work to file a few new chains from factor grind in regards to coast falling. Its easier to lower the gullet in stages from the smallest files, especially on the one side as it has a higher factory gullet with the exception of Husqvarna chain only, I believe.
With different activities and area's with combination work of slashing and falling dominantly dead tree's (Danger tree's/ snag falling) then commonly, I will just start with the 3/16 file instead of the 7/32 spec size.
I will just stay with that size as long as its convenient and when its not, then the next size up will fix the cutter edge damage very fast and get you going in two minutes. Next time you sharpen, then you can cut another stage of the gullet to accommodate it for the right depth . After I fix the danage by going up a size to 7/32 then I can carve back in with the 3/16 on the next round and repeat

Its a style that has payed for many chainsaws and chain I'm sure with the extra time I gain on piece work and with sometimes shorter days....
Fire hours or northern winter days ect.
I/4" file I would use in the valley for Hardwoods. So there is all sorts, its about doing the absolute best you can with the task ahead.

 

[hannes69]

^^ I looked up the manufacturers´specs and you are right Stihl recommends 3/16" file for .325 chains, 13/64" file for 3/8 chains and 7/32" file for .404 chains. Other manufacturers recommend 7/32" file for 3/8 chains. I know at least in Germany fom the forum here, that many start with a 7/32" file, change to a 13/64" file at half life and land at a 3/16" file at the end of life point when hand filing 3/8 chains.
I have no clue about that and use a 3/16" grinding wheel from start to end
I don´t know how large the influence of this difference is. When using a smaller file, the hook of the cutter is more pronounced and should be more aggressive. But the difference between a 7/32" and a 13/64" file is only 7% in diameter, so it should be at least no night and day difference...
Another interesting number BTW: On a Stihl chain cardboard box there´s a drawing of a cutter showing the number of 10° meaning the spec of the angle between the raker tip, rest of the raker and horizontal line. In my examples for nomal profile 3/8 chain, this angle varies from 18° down to 10° for gauge type 1 and 18° down to 11° for gauge type 2, so more or less the same for both types. When you follow the natural line of the gauge tool of course.
Optionally you can give the raker a shape differing from that after defining the height with the gauge tool.
But then we land in another field and can open the discussion for the 'right' raker shape

 

[Westboastfaller]

View attachment 650056
BTW, if someone wonders about the odd value of 5.9° in between 6.3° and 6.2° for a cutter wearing of 20 mil (comparable 'glitch' in other examples):
This is due to the initial raker depth of 25 mil for a new chain. For 0 mil wearing = new chain this leads to a cutting angle of 6.3°. Because the chain already has this depth. If the chain would have a higher raker, the gauge tool in this example would lead to a raker depth of 21.7 mil and a cutting angle of 5.5° fo the 0 mil wearing point, if we would have to file the raker down from a higher point to our initial value.
The default value of 25 mil helps us at this point

So the second reading .020" cutter wear reading is a glitch obvious. So its taking a reading from the full raker height with .020 cutter wear due to having the presetting of .025" depth = 6.3° cutting angle in the software already, that's set by you?



What do you exactly mean " IF the chain were to have a higher raker?

Or is that it above?

2)
You didn't use the presenting on all of them correct?

On PGE 5 with the Carlton low pro.
It looks like you preset a 7.1,° cutting angle at .025
You could make the argument to ignore the first two Reading with your gauge and make the assumption it would start at sbout 6.2- 6.3 then drop at 6.5° as it does. This is based on the common patterns all well the patterns of the remaining numbers.

The 7.1 is not even close to flowing with the rest.
The 7.1 flows nice with the other gauge though. Why would this be?
Your gauge is lower at the base but has less cutting angle except at the end. How is this possible? Something does not seen right here.
*The numbers at the end of the chain are not in question.

3)
On page 9, you used the .025 default depth with the Oregon gauge.
So if I ignore the first two numbers,
By following the pattern flow, it says it starts at about 17- 18 thou approx (according to almost 1/3 of the cutting angle gone)
on the Stihl RM.

I do know the husky gauge is light because I use that gauge on the softwood with that chain now and then and the factory .025" is lower or about the same as my gauge at .030"

4)
Page 9, last example:
.325 softwood gauge on 3/8 stihl RM would be a good example of you not using a "preset default mode it would appear. Correct? This starts with 9+° and flows correctly, it would appear.

Since we are learning the gauges are all different then using the default setting is something to be reconsidered?

Please correct any misunderstanding I may have with my post.

Thanx