jokers
Addicted to ArboristSite
spacemule said:Not dissagreeing with anyone here, but your post brings up a point worth considering, Russ. You mention that racers fun full comp., and therefore this means that full comp. is more efficient. That is obviously true when running high horsepower saws, but does that directly relate to the average joe running an 036 with a 24" bar?
Well the average guy running a 24" bar on an 036 is intellectually challenged in my opinion, and my opinion is based on both actual experience with this model and Stihl`s recommendation of a maximum bar length of 20" on this model. I don`t consider Jeff to be the average joe, he typically seems a bit brighter.
spacemule said:Afterall, a semi truck hauling 40,000 lbs., is running more efficeintly per pound than a pickup truck hauling, 5,000 lbs., but this doesn't correlate to saying a pickup truck will haul 40,000 lbs. more efficiently than 5,000.
You`re right to an extent Rex, there is no corollary suggesting that a pickup will haul 40k#s more efficiently than it will haul 5k#s because infact, it may not haul 40k#s. Let`s consider something else that you spoke of with authority, but apparently have little knowledge of. The average over the road tractor weighs 26k# and the average 40' flat trailer weighs 13k# for an average total weight of 39k# so how does this rig hauling 40k compare to a 5,000# pickup hauling 5k#? Pretty similar efficiency, no?
The economy of the scale of the larger truck does however allow the larger truck to be built with heavier components and a better power transmission system more suited to this sort of daily service.
spacemule said:So, we obviously need to take power output into consideration when speaking of efficiency, no?
No, efficiency is efficiency, as in a coefficient. Performance is a different subject and is more accurately what we are talking about here. If it is not, why don`t we all revert to bucksaws or axes. These tools will just as efficiently fell a tree as a chainsaw, if the measure of efficiency is considered to be the ability to perform the job such as implied by your corrolary.
spacemule said:But, you do touch on this when you say full skip on a short bar is a "crutch" for an underpowered saw. Well, if a guy likes running an 036, then saying that full comp is a crutch for low power is just the same as saying he needs a bigger saw--something he's not arguing. For his 036 application, seems full skip is working fine for him.
Yes and no. Jeff implies that skip chain gives him the best performance on any bar length and powerhead combo. I disagree. Skip chain allows him to use an underpowered saw head for a job that it was not intended for in much the same way that low range on the transfer case of a 4wd truck would allow him to pull a 40,000# load. Yeah, it can be done. Is it the best sense to do it this way? You tell me.
BTW, the cornerstone of Jeff`s argument is this,
fishhuntcutwood said:And the whole premise of chainsaws being chainspeed, it's better, (better as in more efficient and effective) to have fewer teeth cutting at full speed than to have more teeth cutting slower, or bogging the saw down completely.
He`s making some awfully large assumptions that a full comp chain when properly applied is going to pull the saw below it`s peak power output rpm range any more so than skip chain. This isn`t necessarily true in the real world and given the much higher efficiency of cutting chips per revolution or sf/m of a full comp chain vs a skip chain, you`d have to go quite a ways below the peak hp range of the powerhead before realizing an advantage for the skip chain. So far below that it would be considered lugging and abusing the saw.
Russ