SawTroll - raker guide

24d said:

I think this is Art's guide, I don't really understand it, but I'd like to.

Art's guide also it looks easy to duplicate, whats the deal?

Click to expand...

Looks like that screw lets you adjust the clearanse - hopefully there is a reasonably accurate scale on it......

Read post 31!

I'll see if I can get a picture of the one I made from reading Art's post, though looks like his was an Oregon original. Some raker guages locate from the top of the tooth whose raker you are working on while the tail of it sits on one tooth to the rear. As Saw Troll points out that projects any discrepancies in the two teeth heights (length). That would give lower raker on the shorter tooth which might or might not be a bad idea from the progressive idea. The guages with holes in them for the cutters and raker, set raker height partially from the chassis so gives a custom height to each raker according to its own tooth length independant of the next tooths length. Will have to do the math on it to see how much difference a worst case scenario would change raker height discrepancy. Unless you were trying to build a competition chain I think few people are going to worry about it though. For those with long memories back 3 or 4 years, Jokers and GlenS were qibblers of note over such things; I think Saw Troll is a quite accomplished quibbler too, lol! Keeps everyone precise!

Frank, I followed the AS a long time before I joined, and went all the way back to the beginning on the chainsaw forum.

I learned quite a bit from You, Jokers and Glens.

Of course there were others that posted useful info, but the tree of you were the standouts that I remember best from pre-2005 (or so).

I really wish you posted more here, these days!

24d said:

Nobody knows?

Click to expand...

Because it was made before a company lawyer saw it...

This is the depth guage tool that I use. Very similiar to the "Husky" version. I like it...

Tzed250 said:

This is the depth guage tool that I use. Very similiar to the "Husky" version. I like it...

Click to expand...

It is the same as the Husky guide, but a raker guide only, not a combo......

I remove the tool before filing not to save the tool, but save the file from the hard tool. I suppose as the tool wears/filed down it would change the accuracy slightly.

I remove the tool and stand it up on end in the gullet to protect the cutter tooth from nicking by the flat file while filing the depth gauge.

Why the 'progressive' concept? yes the tooth gets shorter from the bar as it is sharpened back, but since the reference plane is the wood being cut, I would think the plane of interest is wood/top of cutter to top of depth gauge. Should not this always stay constant? How far yet down to the bar doesn't seem would matter?

k

kevin j said:

.... I would think the plane of interest is wood/top of cutter to top of depth gauge. Should not this always stay constant? How far yet down to the bar doesn't seem would matter?

k

Click to expand...

Nope - it will be sort of OK, but not optimal!

kevin j said:

Why the 'progressive' concept? yes the tooth gets shorter from the bar as it is sharpened back, but since the reference plane is the wood being cut, I would think the plane of interest is wood/top of cutter to top of depth gauge. Should not this always stay constant? How far yet down to the bar doesn't seem would matter?

k

Click to expand...

Believe the progressive concept was Carlton's. I think this was off their website a few years ago.

SawTroll said:

It is the same as the Husky guide, but a raker guide only, not a combo......

Click to expand...

That is why I said very similiar...but not exactly the same...

ray benson said:

Believe the progressive concept was Carlton's. I think this was off their website a few years ago.

Click to expand...

Yep, and the Husky guide does the same thing.....


..The Oregon/Stihl guides sure doesn't.....

It has something to do with the "rocking" action of the chain.

The "sine" has to change because the hypotenuse is longer...

Sine is in quotes because keeping the sine the same is the point. On a Stihl 33RSC cutter, the distance from the depth guage to the cutter is .23" when new. With a depth guage .025" lower, that gives an angle of about 6.2 degrees. To keep this same 6.2 degree angle when the cutter is filed all the way back (.53" from depth guage to cutter), the depth guage must be .057" lower than the cutter, more than twice the original setting.

N/a

It can be considered as setting the angle of attack of the cutter to the wood. The cutter and raker do not stay pressed to the bar but make interrupted dips into the wood. The greater the angle of attack the steeper the dive into the wood. Probably fairly accurate for round filed chain but depending on side plate hook, that progressively larger raker depth might make too agressive for a square filed chain unless it was a pretty large cc saw. I guess the thought is as the cutter wears back it gets narrower and not as tall and to remove the same amount of wood can handle a higher angle of attack to cut the narrower but deeper chip.

Crofter said:

It can be considered as setting the angle of attack of the cutter to the wood. The cutter and raker do not stay pressed to the bar but make interrupted dips into the wood. The greater the angle of attack the steeper the dive into the wood. Probably fairly accurate for round filed chain but depending on side plate hook, that progressively larger raker depth might make too agressive for a square filed chain unless it was a pretty large cc saw. I guess the thought is as the cutter wears back it gets narrower and not as tall and to remove the same amount of wood can handle a higher angle of attack to cut the narrower but deeper chip.

Click to expand...

Yes..and keeping the side plate angle consistent is important, as the side plate cutting edge is the one that does the real work.

OK, I'm getting me a File-O-Plate!

It seems like the side plate angle is tougher to measure and tends to get steeper sometimes. Does this steeper angle compound with the progressively lower raker to create a rougher(more vibes) cutting chain?

If you use the Stihl or orgeon file guide, the side angle pretty much takes care of itself.

Nice information about filing guides here. Think I will look for a husky file guide now.
I had a raker file guid that sat over previous 2 teeth and was open on end so I could file the raker down and on the last stroke I would tip back end up to put bevel on leading edge of raker. Then I misplace that tool and have been using the oregon raker guide.

I purchased a none running saw w/bar & chain. I rebuilt the saw and cleaned up bar and put 75% life chain back on. Cutters looked sharp so did nothing to chain. Went and cut some wood and then sharpened it. Thought the chips came out a little thick so I looked at rakers, layed a straight edge over the cutters and took out the feeler gauge. Lets see, I had the .022 + .023 + .024 feeler gauges stacked and there still was daylight between them and the straight edge for most of the rakers.

Now the questions;
Think I need to file these rakers again? Just why did somebody file these rakers so far down? Or was it a moranic state of mind that made them do it?
What was a little worse is, How would somebody wipe the tips off the drive links for about 5" of the chain?

I would probably throw the chain away but I am trying to clean up a mile of fence line and I'm cutting small trees, brush (prickly ash, thorn apple, etc), fence wire and dirt and... you name it crap. Hopefully the chain will last long enough to get through with this ugly job.

Smoke N Rust said:

... I would probably throw the chain away but I am trying to clean up a mile of fence line and I'm cutting small trees, brush (prickly ash, thorn apple, etc), fence wire and dirt and... you name it crap. Hopefully the chain will last long enough to get through with this ugly job.

Click to expand...

Sounds dangerous to use such a chain for that job!

Saw Troll, I was wondering - Just why did somebody file these rakers so far down? " ".022 + .023 + .024 feeler gauges stacked and there still was daylight between them and the straight edge for most of the rakers." thats .070+"
What would be the reason for this kind of clearance?
Thanks for reply Saw Troll. Jerry