Humboldt vs. Conventional

[WhitePineJunky]

I use both but over time lean more toward using conventional, I see a lot of people say you waste wood as you take a notch from what will be the Butt of the log, I disagree on it wasting wood, a conventional notch allows to get lower on the stump making up for the face notch loss. 
Humboldt definitely leaves it look neater IMO though
Something pretty trivial and not big deal I suppose but was curious what thoughts here are? 

[timbco68]

I think the same as you on this one. The conventional leaves a lot lower stump .

[Skeans1]

If all things are the same you will end up with less waste with a Humboldt face if you're required a square butt cut. If you're cutting on steep ground a Humboldt can allow a few more tricks off the stump vs a conventional face such as slipping or sliding off the stump.

When you say Humboldt which one are we talking about the traditional or modified that's the most common now? They are two different styles of faces which allow for different things to be done on the stump at different times.

[Old Greenhorn]

Where I cut, the deal with the landowner is that all stumps will be low enough for a machine to drive over them. Now at worst case that means a skidder or a tracked machine, but in reality, we try to make them low enough for UTVs. SO doing a Humboldt is rarely applicable. Although I some times have to cut high in order to avoid bad wood and have a solid hinge. I then trim off at ground level. I will Humboldt those. But I don't cut a lot of large trees. As far as wasted wood goes, in realty most of that notch cut is removed when opening a log up and taking off the sapwood. But I get it for commercial mills. They want square butts.
 As Skeans said, on steep ground, I prefer to use it if I am felling down hill, it actually gives me the lowest stump I can get with a square butt. But I will say, I do so few of them that my skill in lining up my cuts for the upside down notch are not quite ready for prime time. I get some overcuts and that drives me crazy. I just need more practice at it.
 SO I Humboldt when I can or it applies, and conventional for everything else. I've always thought the Humboldt was designed for the PNW folks who have to take stumps higher because of the steep ground and big stump flares, or for cutting off of spring boards. For those trees, it seems the only way to go.

[SwampDonkey]

I've never really thought about it here. I'm just cutting firewood, so I do it the traditional way. I have to leave stumps real low on my trail corridors for the SxS to ride over. I think more on where I want the tree to drop with the least damage to others ... and me.

[WhitePineJunky]

If all things are the same you will end up with less waste with a Humboldt face if you're required a square butt cut. If you're cutting on steep ground a Humboldt can allow a few more tricks off the stump vs a conventional face such as slipping or sliding off the stump.

When you say Humboldt which one are we talking about the traditional or modified that's the most common now? They are two different styles of faces which allow for different things to be done on the stump at different times.

I wasn't aware there were considered two different Humboldt!
I unless you mean the humbolts with block faces and snipes ?

[WhitePineJunky]

Sorry I should have also added I'm considering these cuts on flat land 
Humbolt definitely wins the slopes

I just found it strange how I've never seen a dispute toward that humbolt claiming more wood than conventional 

I can't imagine all of them were cutting on slopes 

[Skeans1]

Where I cut, the deal with the landowner is that all stumps will be low enough for a machine to drive over them. Now at worst case that means a skidder or a tracked machine, but in reality, we try to make them low enough for UTVs. SO doing a Humboldt is rarely applicable. Although I some times have to cut high in order to avoid bad wood and have a solid hinge. I then trim off at ground level. I will Humboldt those. But I don't cut a lot of large trees. As far as wasted wood goes, in realty most of that notch cut is removed when opening a log up and taking off the sapwood. But I get it for commercial mills. They want square butts.
 As Skeans said, on steep ground, I prefer to use it if I am felling down hill, it actually gives me the lowest stump I can get with a square butt. But I will say, I do so few of them that my skill in lining up my cuts for the upside down notch are not quite ready for prime time. I get some overcuts and that drives me crazy. I just need more practice at it.
 SO I Humboldt when I can or it applies, and conventional for everything else. I've always thought the Humboldt was designed for the PNW folks who have to take stumps higher because of the steep ground and big stump flares, or for cutting off of spring boards. For those trees, it seems the only way to go.

If you start your face cut first then your sight cut with a Humboldt it'll be almost as low as a conventional face without the waste, we will see stuff in the smaller timber be 3" off the ground.

[g_man]

I am not in the same league as you guys and generally use the conventional face except on a slope going down hill or if a need to swing the tree. I think the Dutchman works better with a Humboldt face. A least for me it does.

gg

[Skeans1]

Sorry I should have also added I'm considering these cuts on flat land
Humbolt definitely wins the slopes

I just found it strange how I've never seen a dispute toward that humbolt claiming more wood than conventional

I can't imagine all of them were cutting on slopes

Some places in the world a square butt will be required by the mill otherwise you will see deduction in the log or sometimes it becomes a no pay log in this scenario you will see a lot of either style of Humboldt stump. I've seen in contracts the requirement for all stump to be done with a Humboldt face so all the waste is left in the brush without having to long butt the log to clean up the face. Most time when doing a modified Humboldt the face will be in the dirt on a large fir or cedar to the point you're digging around to clear enough area to swing the saw to far side of the face to line up the cut.

Most time when doing these cutting techniques most of us are on our knees or bent over on the stump for the sight cut with out sight cut being under a foot from the ground, just enough that wrap side of the saw will clear the ground or the flare on the stump. When it comes to back cuts some will back bar for extremely low stump others will have a step by flipping the powerhead so they're always dawged into the cut with the chain doing the work vs back barring which normally will produce a mix matched back cut with a longer bar. 

[Nealm66]

I think it's easier to clean your undercuts out with the humbolt. I will purposely come up short and then clean the Dutchman out for accuracy on large trees. Small trees like around 8", it's whatever but large trees the humbolt is just easier to let the saw do the work most of the time. There are some rare occasions like Skeans says where you might have to bore or back bar the lowercut. I worked with a couple old guys in large old growth who would make the lower cut first so the undercut wouldn't pinch and would slide out. I never could aim good that way. 

[SwampDonkey]

Large trees around here like spruce or maple have a lot of but flare, so cutting low is no advantage to the producer. That'll have to be cut off square anyway or be a reject. Mill specs here will state, 'no but flare'. And you can't sell a saw log over 28" but end anyway. An exception might be white pine mills, those big old pines are well over 28". 

[WhitePineJunky]

Large trees around here like spruce or maple have a lot of but flare, so cutting low is no advantage to the producer. That'll have to be cut off square anyway or be a reject. Mill specs here will state, 'no but flare'. And you can't sell a saw log over 28" but end anyway. An exception might be white pine mills, those big old pines are well over 28".

Going that extra bit lower though may give you the extra few inches you need to cut a 16' log out though

Other than that I agree with what all has been said

[thecfarm]

I use the conventional cut the get the stump low to the ground. I don't need my father to come out of the grave and ask me, do you know how to cut down a tree?  
I am not saying anything else is wrong.  
He was fussy man on his stumps. But he was right!!!
Had one of my brothers cut down some trees for firewood. My Father had a fit about his stumps. He was all ready to re-cut the stumps!! He told me, I don't want someone to see the stumps and say that I don't know how to cut trees down. 
A humboldt would still give me a clean looking stump.

[SwampDonkey]

The log length would be determined on the other end.  No one is climbing trees with tape measures. Well low can be a foot high, a standard stump height. I've seen some trees cut 3 feet high, someone didn't want to bend too much. No flare up that high. A 3 foot high stump wouldn't pass around here.    I'm cutting wood that isn't huge, so most stumps are under a foot, some I cut flush, but on trails.  Never know, might need to cut 20" high on a big old rock maple 4 feet on the but. Once you get above the flare the taper is a lot slower. I wouldn't drive over a stump that big even if it was 8" high unless it's a skidder or forwarder. I will cut a popple high if it has a J-shape but to.  Cut it off later. Hard splitting those, the grain is curved.

[WhitePineJunky]

The log length would be determined on the other end.  No one is climbing trees with tape measures. Well low can be a foot high, a standard stump height. I've seen some trees cut 3 feet high, someone didn't want to bend too much. No flare up that high. A 3 foot high stump wouldn't pass around here.    I'm cutting wood that isn't huge, so most stumps are under a foot, some I cut flush, but on trails.  Never know, might need to cut 20" high on a big old rock maple 4 feet on the but. Once you get above the flare the taper is a lot slower. I wouldn't drive over a stump that big even if it was 8" high unless it's a skidder or forwarder. I will cut a popple high if it has a J-shape but to.  Cut it off later. Hard splitting those, the grain is curved.

You're misunderstanding me. There may be a bend 15'10" up from where a humbolt would be, but if i go lower a couple inches with a conventional, I can make that a 16' log.

I don't have perfect cream crop trees like they do out west, so I scrounge what I can

[mudfarmer]

The log length would be determined on the other end.  No one is climbing trees with tape measures. Well low can be a foot high, a standard stump height. I've seen some trees cut 3 feet high, someone didn't want to bend too much. No flare up that high. A 3 foot high stump wouldn't pass around here.    I'm cutting wood that isn't huge, so most stumps are under a foot, some I cut flush, but on trails.  Never know, might need to cut 20" high on a big old rock maple 4 feet on the but. Once you get above the flare the taper is a lot slower. I wouldn't drive over a stump that big even if it was 8" high unless it's a skidder or forwarder. I will cut a popple high if it has a J-shape but to.  Cut it off later. Hard splitting those, the grain is curved.

You're misunderstanding me. There may be a bend 15'10" up from where a humbolt would be, but if I do lower a couple inches with a conventional, I can make that a 16' log.

I don't have perfect cream crop trees like they do out west, so I scrounge what I can

Same here, huge percentage of 8 and 10' logs to make grade and that extra few inches can make all the difference. I do need to practice humboldt more, on the steep it probably won't leave a higher stump if done like Skeans says when falling downhill and no full wrap so get a couple more out of it It just does not feel as natural to me and don't do it much so no muscle memory to kick in.

Big root flares- pretend I am a spur cutter for a minute, get right in there

[SwampDonkey]

But my point is, how do you know the tree is 15'-10" when the tree is vertical?

Most often a log 12'-6" with a bigger top end is going to be more money to begin with. Same with sweep in a long log, enough deflection by 16' that don't grade, but bucked shorter, more money. Seen it many times. Cutting off flare would have to be great money to bother with. Logs are not big money up here, even veneer is 1/3 of what Ed gets in southern Ontario. I have rarely seen flare cut off a log up here, that gets old if you have a mountain of flared spruce logs in the pile barely paid more than pulp price. :D

[WhitePineJunky]

But my point is, how do you know the tree is 15'-10" when the tree is vertical?

Most often a log 12'-6" with a bigger top end is going to be more money to begin with. Same with sweep in a long log, enough deflection by 16' that don't grade, but bucked shorter, more money. Seen it many times.

I don't, but I'm not taking chances, sometimes it pays off sometimes it doesn't. One can get pretty close to eyeing out a 16' in a standing tree though

[weimedog]

Seems like this is one of those discussions that burn up a ton of energy. I watch the west coast loggers like Bjarne Butler working enormous trees. Often having to work waist high even over his head. Humboldt's are about the only way to accomplish felling those trees. When the tree's get smaller AND change over to hard wood even veneer the discussion changes. There is a channel of a Pro fellow ( Good Fellers YouTube ) doing nothing but Veneer and there are no Humboldt's in his world as that leaves too much wood in the stump which is money in those tree's. Bring that up and there is this endless mental gymnastics of those pushing the one fits all Humboldt approach, never understood the big deal on which vs. just safely getting wood on the ground & prioritizing ROI. The take away for me is and has been there is a reason professionals use both. And that is where I wish the conversation would go vs. one over another. Simply in my opinion the entire concept of one fits all is BS. I use what ever technique my log buyer ends up giving the most money for. Usually in my wood it's a Humboldt on the hill sides and a derivative of a conventional /GOL on the flats. Quit paying attention to the pundits of one vs. the other and started watching the log buyers opinion & thinking for myself

[weimedog]

A testy & grumpy me felling a red oak using Humboldt on a hill side.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ThF5BjS-aE

[WhitePineJunky]

Seems like this is one of those discussions that burn up a ton of energy. I watch the west coast loggers like Bjarne Butler working enormous trees. Often having to work waist high even over his head. Humboldt's are about the only way to accomplish felling those trees. When the tree's get smaller AND change over to hard wood even veneer the discussion changes. There is a channel of a Pro fellow ( Good Fellers YouTube ) doing nothing but Veneer and there are no Humboldt's in his world as that leaves too much wood in the stump which is money in those tree's. Bring that up and there is this endless mental gymnastics of those pushing the one fits all Humboldt approach, never understood the big deal on which vs. just safely getting wood on the ground & prioritizing ROI. The take away for me is and has been there is a reason professionals use both. And that is where I wish the conversation would go vs. one over another. Simply in my opinion the entire concept of one fits all is BS. I use what ever technique my log buyer ends up giving the most money for. Usually in my wood it's a Humboldt on the hill sides and a derivative of a conventional /GOL on the flats. Quit paying attention to the pundits of one vs. the other and started watching the log buyers opinion & thinking for myself

I basically just wanted to make this thread to have any kind of other confirmation that conventional does not means less wood or waste, it's all I've ever seen or heard said.
Definitely established they both hav their applications, in that huge timber out west I can totally understand a Humboldt!

It's been on my mind for awhile!

[weimedog]

That's a good thing, a meaningful discussion of why a particular approach is used. On the flats, I use a conventional and have the hinge in a root flare if possible. Certainly as close to the edge to Get ALL of the wood I can to the landing. Can save over a ft per tree vs. Humboldt partly because to use a Humboldt I would have the bar in the dirt to cut that low. So save a foot a tree using conventional and My log buyers takes the measurement FROM the base on the veneer & trees where the face cut is out of the money wood. Adds up quick at over a buck a foot. Using the conventional on a typical 100 tree job is 100ft of timber. Also typically pine and other soft wood around here is less than 300 a thousand, so LOTS vs every bit of it is the norm AND feller bunchers as it's tough for a logger to make a living getting 1/2 of 300 a thousand on soft wood. Out west soft wood is the norm. Here Hard Wood with much higher value is the norm. Different techniques to maximize return on investment have been developed in both area's. Why it's tough to listen to the one size fits all and push for Humboldt's by some of the large high volume Pacific North West Canadian channels for anything other than pure entertainment and to see other peoples worlds.

[weimedog]

 Another discussion is about the species of a tree & fiber pull characteristics. Here they pull, out there in soft wood world they break so face cut angles can be less.

This is where I ended up after 25 years in this stuff
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ed72a3ugc2I

[WhitePineJunky]

Another discussion is about the species of a tree & fiber pull characteristics. Here they pull, out there in soft wood world they break so face cut angles can be less.

This is where I ended up after 25 years in this stuff
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ed72a3ugc2I

The worst for fibre pull for around here is spruce, basically half to stump jump it as it's falling