Clogger Chainsaw Chaps Evaluation

[steve easy]

I like the defender pro trousers. Trousers usually last a year with nearly everyday use. Hard wearing and feel lighter to wear compared to the defender, zip pockets, elastic waist but no buttons for suspenders. Zenitec are hopeless when it comes to communication, tried email/online msg, phone calls and left msgs no contact.

 

[Cycledude]

Keep saying I should buy pants or chaps but so far ain’t bought nothing

 

[Philbert]

Skinny Legs ?

As noted, these are first impressions. The feedback from other users is very helpful in providing a broader review of these products; I hope that people will continue to share their experiences and opinons, and I plan to add more of my own.

A thought came to me about how the slim legs might fit over different boots, especially some rubber Viking / Husqvarna style chainsaw protective boots that I have. These boots are somewhat heavy and awkward, but affordable ($100 - $120), that work well for wet and cold firewood cutting, even if they have no place in a tree.

I never realized how difficult it is to take pictures of your own ankles, but I tried on the DefenderPro chap with a pair of 10" high, conventional, leather, lace-up, work boots, and a pair of 16" high (!), Husqvarna, rubber, chainsaw protective boots. I was able to fit the chaps comfortably over both boots, although, I had to carefully shift the Velcro closures to their far end with the rubber boots.



Would this be an expected combination? Who knows? Some guys might cut in cowboy boots, 'Crocs', fire-fighting or muck-out boots, or ballerina slippers for all I know. Some guys may have calves like tree trunks. The STIHL wrap chaps that I compared these to have a more generous range of adjustment for this, but the trade off is that they are bulkier in that area. These work for me, but there is no substitute for trying them on with your 'kit'.

Philbert

 

[Bob Hedgecutter]

Skinny Legs ?

As noted, these are first impressions. The feedback from other users is very helpful in providing a broader review of these products; I hope that people will continue to share their experiences and opinons, and I plan to add more of my own.

A thought came to me about how the slim legs might fit over different boots, especially some rubber Viking / Husqvarna style chainsaw protective boots that I have. These boots are somewhat heavy and awkward, but affordable ($100 - $120), that work well for wet and cold firewood cutting, even if they have no place in a tree.

I never realized how difficult it is to take pictures of your own ankles, but I tried on the DefenderPro chap with a pair of 10" high, conventional, leather, lace-up, work boots, and a pair of 16" high (!), Husqvarna, rubber, chainsaw protective boots. I was able to fit the chaps comfortably over both boots, although, I had to carefully shift the Velcro closures to their far end with the rubber boots.

View attachment 813910View attachment 813911View attachment 813912

Would this be an expected combination? Who knows? Some guys might cut in cowboy boots, 'Crocs', fire-fighting or muck-out boots, or ballerina slippers for all I know. Some guys may have calves like tree trunks. The STIHL wrap chaps that I compared these to have a more generous range of adjustment for this, but the trade off is that they are bulkier in that area. These work for me, but there is no substitute for trying them on with your 'kit'.

Philbert

In all fairness Philbert, did you try tightening the cuff of the chaps to try them INSIDE the Viking boots, as one might do with trousers?
Then pull up the chip barrier at the top of the boot.
The whole concept of the Viking boot is to keep mud/water/debris out of the foot/ankle/calf area for chainsaw users working on mucky sites (skid sites and landing areas), but they also stop the bottom leg cuff/calf area of the users trousers becoming mud encrusted- as the mud works its way into the material and starts breaking down the fibres. Viking boots can be washed off, but keep the bottom leg of the wearers clothing cleaner.

 

[Westboastfaller]

Thanks Philbert for your review. It is always nice to see other options. The chaps I have I bought after the USFS put out a memo that all chaps need to have accordance with 6170-4F or greater specification. I like on the Clogger's how the Velcro keeps it together around the back. Curious if those are approved by the USFS?

I don't wear them for hiking, this can mean 12 miles up and down elevation. There are stuffed in a pack. To hot and too restrictive.

Here is what I have been using.
.
View attachment 813392View attachment 813393View attachment 813394View attachment 813395View attachment 813396

Formerly 6170- 4E until 2000 then widened the pads from 12 to 14" and uped the chain speed threshold. ASTM F 1897 was 2,500 fpm until either from 1997-2004 act or the act of 2008 then was superseded to 2,750. Fpm.
6170-4F are 3,200 fpm under it's own governing body. I don't know how that particular test converts to other existing test even with the numbers? Generally they don't Identify 'their' test very easily. It's very convoluted in North America but this just confuses it more. I either need a Lawyer to answer my questions or one to explain it all to me.

 

[Philbert]

In all fairness Philbert, did you try tightening the cuff of the chaps to try them INSIDE the Viking boots, as one might do with trousers?

With pants (jeans) under the chaps, there is not enough room in there. I might be able to get the pants (only) in the boots, if the fit was too tight, but was able to get the chaps to fit over both.

Philbert

 

[Bob Hedgecutter]

With pants (jeans) under the chaps, there is not enough room in there. I might be able to get the pants in the boots, if the fit was too tight, but was able to get the chaps to fit over both.

Philbert

Was wondering if there would be room for the buckles- or if the buckles might blister the back of the calves if worn inside the boots.
I am blessed with skinny calves.
Plus the Viking style boot may vary depending on manufacturer. I can get Stihl Winter weight trousers inside or outside on my own boots of that style- admittingly- over takes a bit of tweaking- but it can be done.

 

[PV Hiker]

Formerly 6170- 4E until 2000 then widened the pads from 12 to 14" and uped the chain speed threshold. ASTM F 1897 was 2,500 fpm until either from 1997-2004 act or the act of 2008 then was superseded to 2,750. Fpm.
6170-4F are 3,200 fpm under it's own governing body. I don't know how that particular test converts to other existing test even with the numbers? Generally they don't Identify 'their' test very easily. It's very convoluted in North America but this just confuses it more. I either need a Lawyer to answer my questions or one to explain it all to me.

I did not know what 6170-4F was rated to! 3200 fpm.

Clogger Zero Light and Cool Chainsaw Chaps Calf Wrap

• UL Certified to ASTM F1897-14 and meets OSHA regulation 1910-266
• Uses Arrestex HP advanced chainsaw protection material which is light, cool and quick drying, rated to 3,500 ft/min (750 ft/min above the standard)

So you are saying if I wanted to buy the Clogger Zero calf wrap chaps they would meet USFS specifications? And would cover me under their insurance as a volunteer?

.

 

[Philbert]

So you are saying if I wanted to buy the Clogger Zero calf wrap chaps they would meet USFS specifications? And would cover me under their insurance as a volunteer?

I am going to let @Cloggerpro handle that, but point out that they do offer a fire-resistant line of chaps and pants, that might be more in line with USFS specs.
https://goclogger.com/chaps/fire-resistant/
https://goclogger.com/fabric-specifications/
Standards and requirements can be specification based (e.g. 'this' thread, 'this' color, 'this' protective fabric', etc.), or performance based (no cut through under 'these' test conditions, etc.).

Philbert

 

[Philbert]

Was wondering if there would be room for the buckles- or if the buckles . . .

Good point - I did not even think about the buckles!

Plus, the chaps would also protect my pretty boots, instead of the other way around!

Philbert

 

[Westboastfaller]

I did not know what 6170-4F was rated to! 3200 fpm.

Clogger Zero Light and Cjool Chainsaw Chaps Calf Wrap

• UL Certified to ASTM F1897-14 and meets OSHA regulation 1910-266
• Uses Arrestex HP advanced chainsaw protection material which is light, cool and quick drying, rated to 3,500 ft/min (750 ft/min above the standard)

So you are saying if I wanted to buy the Clogger Zero calf wrap chaps they would meet USFS specifications? And would cover me under their insurance as a volunteer?

.

View attachment 813940

Lol...no that's not what I said at all.

The chain speed threshold is only relevant to the test itself.
So often they 'cross test' to find out what is comparatively equal.
Firstly you have to adhere to the highest standard.That may even be your wife?
As Philbert said to you, You have to check with your occasional health and safety, employer, clients ect and find out what they meet or exceed..and/ what they except.

 

[PV Hiker]

I absolutely agree that the higher standards could/can be my wife!!!

Sorry to read too much into what you said. You bring up good points. As I don't need a fire rated chaps but If I wanted to buy the Clogger Zero light full calf wrap chaps then I can ask Clogger directly and i can provide info to my USFS contact here and see if they meet USFS standards.

I'll wait until Philbert has more time to test the pair he received.

 

[Bob Hedgecutter]

I absolutely agree that the higher standards could/can be my wife!!!

Sorry to read too much into what you said. You bring up good points. As I don't need a fire rated chaps but If I wanted to buy the Clogger Zero light full calf wrap chaps then I can ask Clogger directly and provide my USFS contact here and see if they meet USFS standards.

I'll wait until Philbert has more time to test the pair he received.

2. North America
Clogger chainsaw protective garments are certified by Underwriters Laboratory (UL) to ASTM F1897-14 for USA and to BNQ 1923-450-1 for Canada.

In addition, they meet the Worksafe BC Standard as set out in their OHSR Section 8-21 (2). These North American regulations specify the following minimum chainspeed ratings:

• ASTM F1897-14: 2750 ft/min
• BNQ 1923-450-1: 3000 ft/min
• Worksafe BC: 3300 ft/min

All standard Clogger chainsaw protective garments currently offered in the United States are made using Arrestex HP which has a chainspeed rating of 3500 feet/minute which exceeds each of these standards.



The Arcmax range of garments are made with Arrestex FR which has an even higher chainspeed rating of 3600 feet/minute.

Straight off their website- under Standards & Certifications.

 

[Westboastfaller]

Below is WorkSafe B.C. OHS regs. (For example)
So what is 24 m/s (4724 FPM) is equal to 3300 FPM under ASTM F 1414-04 test standard.
_____________________________________
G8.21(2)-2 Leg protection - Alternate standard
Issued May 29, 2018

Regulatory excerpt
Section 8.21(2) of the OHS Regulation ("Regulation") states:

(2) Leg protective devices referred to in subsection (1) must meet or exceed
(a) the general requirements of section 4 of the WorkSafeBC Standard - Leg Protective Devices, as set out in Schedule 8-A of this Part, and
(b) the performance requirements of one of the following standards, using the cut-resistance testing protocol set out in that standard except as varied in subparagraph (ii):
(i) WorkSafeBC Standard - Leg Protective Devices, as set out in section 5 of Schedule 8-A of this Part, applying a threshold chain speed of 18.3 metres per second or 3 600 feet per minute;
(ii) ASTM F 1414-04 Standard Test Method for Measurement of Cut Resistance to Chain Saw in Lower Body (Legs) Protective Clothing, but applying a threshold chain speed of 16.8 metres per second or 3 300 feet per minute;
(iii) ISO 11393-2 Protective clothing for users of hand-held chain-saws - Part 2: Test methods and performance requirements for leg protectors, applying a Class 2 threshold chain speed of 24 metres per second or 4 724 feet per minute;
(iv) BS EN 381-5:1995 Protective clothing for users of hand-held chain saws - Part 5: Requirements for leg protectors, applying a Class 2 threshold chain speed of 24 metres per second or 4 724 feet per minute.

 

[Cloggerpro]

Here is the reply from our R&D/Standards boffins here at Clogger!

Pete

I have a copy of the USFS 6170-4G here which supersedes ‘F’. The date on it is Sep 6 2011. This is actually a specification on how this product is to be made, not a performance standard, and it is extremely prescriptive! Down to the length of tail after trimming threads must be no more than ¼”! Nowhere does it specify the chainsaw cut-test performance. It does state that product must be certified to NFPA 1977 which is the wildland firefighting standard.

There is no way that I would even attempt to make products that comply with this USFS specification. They have to be made from Kevlar of a certain weight and modulus with kevlar felt and they have to be a certain shape and the webbing is this and the buckles are that etc…. e.g. if a dome has more than 3 splits in the barrell when it is cinched it must be rejected. A bartack must have 42 stitches, be ¾” long by 1/8” wide. The components are all specified down to the nth degree and where to buy them from etc. There are 6 pages of items that need to be inspected at final inspection with accept/reject criteria! It is totally over the top!

So to answer the guys question, if the authorities will not allow anything other than USFS certified chaps then that is what he will have to have.

Lincoln

Hopefully that makes sense, it looks like they are unable to be used for USFS work at this point and time until regulations change unfortunately, not due to lack of performance but because of the USFS thinking they are the world authority on what makes the best pair of chaps!

Cheers and sorry about the delayed reply @Philbert
Pete
Clogger

 

[PV Hiker]

Thanks for this posting @Cloggerpro (Pete). I just have to wear what I have volunteering on USFS land to be covered under their insurance. Maybe some day a new memo will come forth.

When things get back to normal I'll ask my Sawyer contact at the USFS about this.

Cheers.
.
.

 

[Philbert]

The differences between 'prescriptive' and 'performance' based standards is always interesting.

Philbert

 

[mudfly]

The differences between 'prescriptive' and 'performance' based standards is always interesting.

Philbert

I’d say that the USFS had a certain manufacturer write the spec for them. In the engineering world, this is referred to as “being spec’ed in”. Basically someone as USFS didn’t know what they wanted so they reached out to a preferred vendor and asked for their spec for chaps. And I would put a $5 bet on that being the true story.

 

[Philbert]

I’d say that the USFS had a certain manufacturer write the spec for them. In the engineering world, this is referred to as “being spec’ed in”. Basically someone as USFS didn’t know what they wanted so they reached out to a preferred vendor and asked for their spec for chaps. And I would put a $5 bet on that being the true story.

To me, it is more reflective of Mil-Specs / MIL-STDs from the Department of Defense. For example, the US Army wants things made in a uniform, specific way, so that they are indistinguishable and interchangeable, regardless of the manufacturer. They also know that bids will be based on the exact same items. There are times when this makes sense, and it is understandable that a government agency might follow that pattern (no pun intended). 'Tried and true'.

The downside is that it limits innovation. The military does allow new technology and ideas to considered, but it is through a different pathway. The USFS likely has some similar procedures, although, I have no idea what they are.

Philbert

 

[mudfly]

To me, it is more reflective of Mil-Specs / MIL-STDs from the Department of Defense. For example, the US Army wants things made in a uniform, specific way, so that they are indistinguishable and interchangeable, regardless of the manufacturer. They also know that bids will be based on the exact same items. There are times when this makes sense, and it is understandable that a government agency might follow that pattern (no pun intended). 'Tried and true'.

The downside is that it limits innovation. The military does allow new technology and ideas to considered, but it is through a different pathway. The USFS likely has some similar procedures, although, I have no idea what they are.

Philbert

I work for the USAF, how do you think MIL specs are written? Again they take a preferred vendor and copy their spec, for the most part.