Inject-a-Sharp - my review

I bought a loop of Inject-a-sharp to use for cutting RR ties for my son's Eagle Scout project.


RR ties are famous for being hard on chains. They are hard, soaked with creosote, and often gritty. But the biggest problem with RR ties is that they often have chunks of gravel embedded in them. Even 8, 10 inches in from the end. The tremendous vibration they endure, while being half buried in gravel, results in gravel (1" rocks) being sucked into cracks far from the ends. You can hit a rock almost anywhere in a tie.

I hit one with my second cut , and at that point it doesn't matter WHAT chain you are running, short of diamond concrete cutting chain. You are done. Cutting curlicues! No straight lines, and lots of bearing down burning wood and hoping. Not fun. Carbide chain can't help you here.

It sharpened up just fine on a friend's Oregon 511 grinder, and yesterday I was at it again. I cut 8 or 10 ties . I didn't hit any rocks, and it cut as well on the last one as one the first. The last cut was into dirt. Yes, I know. It was intentional. One of the ties had been set in place, and it was too long. It was either pull the tie out (pinned with 18" rebar!) or cut it where it was. I cut it where it was!

The chain looks fine. It will cut wood well after all that. I'm sure it will last longer in cutting dirty wood than regular chain. Long enough to make it worthwhile? Dunno. I'd have to do a lot more cutting (without rocks!) to be sure.

So, would I do it again? Not for RR ties. The rock issue makes the carbide advantage meaningless. The first day, I had to finish up with regular chain, and it cut fine. If I'm going to rock out a chain anyway, it might as well be cheaper chain.

In fact, if I have to do a RR tie project again, I'll look for some really cheap junk chain, and buy a half-dozen loops.

Hope that helps somebody!


I"ll keep using the carbide for my regular wood cutting, and we'll see how it goes....

I'm glad you started this thread, Mark.

Objective info on Inject-a-Sharp (IaS) is rare and inadequate (I just searched Arborist a day ago, and only found a few, mixed opinions.)

There must be lots of people out there who have used the stuff in all kinds of conditions and could educate the rest of us on a solution to cut difficult and especially abrasive wood.

Your experience leaves questions in the air, as you concede, because the rocks made a systematic test impossible, and I have the impression you did not use a regular chain (which chain?) enough in a comparable manner to draw a clear conclusion.


I have tried occasional RR tie cuts using my worst condition no-name chain with poor results (rapid dulling, cuts not straight, slow - but not hitting actual obstructions) I think rocks would break teeth on expensive carbide tipped chain. Nowadays I cut easily and cleanly all around RR ties with a skil saw with a carbide-tipped blade (cheap), and finish the center with a handsaw.


We need a side-by-side test of IaS and quality standard chain such as Stihl RM using a good-running saw on sand blown wood, beach wood, sand-impregnated Salt Cedar deposited by flash floods (my nemesis) ultra-dense hardwood, creosoted telephone poles or something similar.

Skidded lumber often has lots of dirt in it, but it is likely to be too irregularly distributed for a systematic test, although it is good candidate for an abrasion-resistant chain in daily use.

There are so many different chain characteristics, that it is important to specify the comparison chain as completely as possible (e.g. brand, model, type of tooth - round (chipper), chisel of semi-chisel): all these have an influence on durability. IaS will beat inferior chain or an unsuitable, quality chain; so will the correct quality non-treated chain. Will IaS beat a non-plated chain in an optimum configuration for abrasion resistance, and what is such a configuration. Most say Stihl RM is best, but it is expensive (the cost may be justified for the purpose - there is not enough info to be sure).

I hope people will post their independent experiences with IaS here, good or bad, comparison with another chain or not, with as much relevant information to allow readers to asses it's performance as possible. If a comparison is made with another chain, please specify the comparison chain as completely as possible for the reasons already mentioned

It is really hard to take just one person's positive experience with IaS and compare it to another's negative experience: the conditions won't be comparable. If there are enough posts, one can look for a consensus. So far I have only found a few enthusiastic ones, and a few negative ones, but no pattern or careful comparisons on which to base a conclusion.

Charlie.

Here is the experiment I would like to do:

but I can't because there is no IAS made for the 325 pitch bar on the new saw I'm about to buy: you need 3/8". (If I convert to 3/8 to try IAS, I'll test seasoned, sandy, 16" Salt Cedar; no US wood is harder) and telephone pole sections which would provide the most consistent material in size and consistency, although they may lack the abrasive quality of interest depending on their origin. It would be interesting to compare poles treated with sand suspended in a light glue or varnish to simulate sand-impregnated wood, and untreated poles (just cut 1" slices).

I would like to see new chain tested as follows: on material of defined, equal diameter, with a) comparison of time and number of cuts to FIRST indication of dulling, (that is when one should pause to sharpen) independently for each chain. After first sharpening to equivalent sharpness), b) time to second sharpening would be of interest. c) If possible, life of each chain should eventually be recorded as total hours use, number of cuts (estimated from amount cut) and number of sharpenings; I recognize this would only be possible for heavy users). d) One might also be alert for differences in saw performance and revealing chain wear patterns.

I would expect such a test to reveal differences in durability and thus sharpening frequency, in cutting rate, and overall chain life (measured by number of cuts/amount of material cut).

a) alone would provide useful definitive information on the relative merits of each chain, but each additional stage will provide further insights and a firmer conclusion.

In the previous post I outlined the importance of selecting a suitable comparison chain (I suggest Stihl RM) and defining its characteristics. If IaS beats a crappy chain that does not mean much. If it substantially beats something like the Stihl, that is something else.

Well, I outlined an "ideal" experiment, the basic part being useful and easy to do. Any takers?? Or better ideas?

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

Lacking careful comparisons, let's have experiences!

Charlie

cgraham said:

Your experience leaves questions in the air, as you concede, because the rocks made a systematic test impossible, and I have the impression you did not use a regular chain (which chain?) enough in a comparable manner to draw a clear conclusion.

Click to expand...

Yep. Limited test, but I do think the carbide held up better in cuts where rocks didn't ruin the chain.

BUT, it's a very limited test!

cgraham said:

It is really hard to take just one person's positive experience with IaS and compare it to another's negative experience: the conditions won't be comparable. If there are enough posts, one can look for a consensus. So far I have only found a few enthusiastic ones, and a few negative ones, but no pattern or careful comparisons on which to base a conclusion.

Charlie.

Click to expand...

Yes, and too many people don't seem to understand that!