WM bed design

[beenthere]

Seems all the responses are getting at both the OP problem (with suggested repairs) as well as the apparent main problem of having the wing supports out when they maybe shouldn't be and the possibility of dropping big logs onto the wing supports.

I see no good reason to attempt to corrall, herd, restrict, or get "irked" over responses. The solutions will be sifted out and the cream will rise to the top.

It is the Forestry Forum way, and what makes it such a great forum.  Of course, my opinion here. ;)

[Jeff]

I see no good reason to attempt to corrall, herd, restrict, or get "irked" over responses. The solutions will be sifted out and the cream will rise to the top.

It is the Forestry Forum way, and what makes it such a great forum.  Of course, my opinion here. ;)

I absolutely agree with that.

[JVK]

To those who posted helpful comments (and there were few), thank you.

[Peter Drouin]

So a lot of responses are "How could you do that? I've never done that on mine." and others are "You did something wrong, because the machine is great." Maybe its just me and my way of thinking, but we all should be focusing on a solution, not the problem. The rail is bent, so let's fix the rail first then worry about how it got that way.

My apologies if this comment irks you, but it irks me when only two comments give a solution to the original question. Provide a viable solution first then you can make all the comments you want about the problem.

We have the solution plate steel welded to it , the rest of the posts where trying to help so after its fix it wont happing a 2ed time, and we will all be looking at our mills for the same thing, and find a better way to do things, were not wiseing off just trying to help JVK so him and his WM will last a long time

[Jeff]

And thank-you to ALL that posted for adding valuable content to the Forestry Forum that other members, guests and future members may find useful, such as folding in the supports before loading logs.

[giant splinter]

I believe that the frame structure on all the mills and particularly the larger mills from LT40 through LT70 are more than adequate for handling any large log and will not yield under normal usage, how can anyone argue (design flaw) when standard practice it not followed. I thought the customers buying new mills all went through a 6 to 8 hour training program prior to delivery, I went through this introduction when I bought mine and it was not my first sawmill and it helped a lot to get trained on a thinkerf bandmill after coming off an old brand X circular mill. I felt I needed all the information that I could get and the Oregon Wood-Mizer store was very good about training me before I picked up the mill, the staff made sure that I understood how to use the mill, how to maintain the mill and what not to do around the mill, we cut a few logs and every function was described in detail including offbearing and stickering. Sorry to hear about your experience with your new LT50 and I hope you find a way to get the frame back to specifications.

[Leigh Family Farm]

Sorry for earlier...had a bad night (pregnant French wife) and I was a bit cranky in the morning. The reading the FF is my reading-the-morning-newspaper-over-coffee ritual most people have, and it brings me great joy to share thigns on here with all of you. Again, my apologies...

[ladylake]

I'd have to ask why the swing out support , I'd make that slanted rail longer and a stationary support.   Steve

[isawlogs]

 After reading that three mills had the same issue, I would and still thinking that there is an issue with the beam that supports the swing out bunks.  The problem I see is the thickness of the beam is not adequate for what it may have to support....  So I call it the way I see it a design flaw that can be easily fixed, use a thicker walled beam to support the swing out bunks or plate them.
  I wish at times I was as fluent as some of you are to answer with big long words that the encyclopedia has the meaning of, but I am not I use the terms I know to express what I am thinking if  'design flaw'  pulls too hard on some of ya'all's britches , well i'm sorry. find me a better term to use.  :P

[Chuck White]

I'd have to ask why the swing out support , I'd make that slanted rail longer and a stationary support.   Steve

Steve; As was explained by the Wood-Mizer folks at Hannibal, NY, the swing out rails are supposed to only be used when there is a flat surface to be placed on them.

They are for supporting a cant, not a log!

[beenthere]

 ;D ;D
Marcel, yer not gonna be pullin on my britches, no way Jose. You keep your hands to yerself :D

For me, it is one of those things that could be added (thicker walled beam) but that would weigh more and cost more, so increase the sales price of the mill.
Then comes the "fix up one thing to avoid failure" that just means the "failure" will happen somewheres else.
There always will be a bigger, crooked log to drop from higher up, so trying to design for the biggest and highest likely is tough to do. ;)  (and not saying that is THE reason for the dent in the beam, as I don't know that).

My take, I suspect the design is as planned to be adequate for the job but hold down the weight and the fabrication costs. Only my opinion. 

Good explanation Chuck.

[Bibbyman]

I'd have to ask why the swing out support , I'd make that slanted rail longer and a stationary support.   Steve

One more great advantage of the Wood-Mizer design is the open corners where a person can stand close to where they can pull boards or flitches.  If you "boxed in" the corners, you'd loose that feature.

[isawlogs]

 :D :D  don't you worry none Mr. Beenthere I have no intentions on pullin' your britches in any direction,  :D 

  I know too well how to use and why those swing away bunks are to be used, and I could not agry with you more on what you saye. But I still think a plate where they ride out would be needed for some users of these mills.

I'm putting this to a rest now.

[ladylake]

Why not have a sturdy staionary bunk maybe 15" out which surly wouldn't be in the way, a lot of people like off loading off the other side on my B20 better than a WM. 

[ronwood]

I am wondering if there may have been some bad steel that has not up to spec or when the beam is made would there be a seam that could cause a weakness. The adjustment under is small and the force that it could exert on the beam could significant with that small of footprint.

When i am on site cutting I always have my customers overbearing on the loader side. Try to keep them away side where a broken blade could come through the fingers. Have not had one yet come through in 10 yrs.

Ron

[jcbrotz]

Remember boys some people can break a stainless steel ball if you let them play with it long enough. At least that's what I have been told about myself MANY times.

And for the record I do not believe 3 mills would equate to a design flaw but maybe an operator flaw.

Now for my way of fixing it. cut out the bent area weld in some reinforcements inside the tube and then weld a new plate on top and grind flat. If I were the one who bent it more than like likely I would do it again so putting say a couple 2 or 3 3inch square tubes in line with where it was bent may slow down the process as it would now have to bend the top and bottom.

I still want to know if the bolts or pivot was bent something had to give for it to bend the main tube 1/4 to 3/8 of an inch

[ladylake]

Sawmills take a beating and should be made to handle it no matter how bad. 
I'm not saying dropping a 30" log from 5' either just normal abuse.  Steve

[scully]

I love this thread ! the key here is swing outs for square cants ! Thicker wall tube steel for the 45deg swing supports would be great but if the mill is used correctly why ? I agree that stuff happens and there is always an aw crap situation . So we deal with that ! Not sure if my last response got anyones panties in a bunch sorry if it did but I am passionate about WM and the desighn ! Long before my passion for milling I was a welder and fabricator , I build race car chassis and have fixed so much heavy equip. ! This topic just struck a nerve in a good way ,I don't care what machine you use ,there is a limit !  Some just don't know how to tell ............

[Brucer]

From section 4.2 of my 2006 LT40HD manual:

"CAUTION! Be sure the log clamp, pivot rails, turning arm, and toe boards are adjusted ouit of the path of the log before loading a log on to the bed. Failure to do so may result in machine damage or cause misalignment."

Remember, a successful sawmill is an integrated design. If you try to simply "cut and paste" the design ideas from one mill onto another one, you will probably end up with something isn't satisfactory.

Swinging the pivot rails out of the way on a Wood-Mizer allows you to level a tapered log over a much shorter distance. The butt end can swing down while the top end is raised by the toeboards. That means less toeboard travel to level a given log, and therefore less time to level it.

Once you have a flat face down, the pivot rails can be swung under the log to keep it from sagging. There's little chance of damage when the weight of the log is spread out over several fixed bed rails as well.

[ladylake]

 No problem leveing the taper out of logs on my B20, takes a couple seconds. Also long logs will turn better when supported all the way as the heavy end won't be falling down in a hole.   Steve

[WoodenHead]

This has been a great thread for me.  I have to admit that I am one those people who have been using the swinging arms incorrectly.  Now I know otherwise.    

[JustinW_NZ]

This has been a great thread for me.  I have to admit that I am one those people who have been using the swinging arms incorrectly.  Now I know otherwise.   

yeah I agree

Talking to some other guys around here and they all had the same divot in the rail, but also admitted they never bother swinging them back...

Cheers
Justin

[barbender]

It's from that puny Kiwi timber ;D

[JustinW_NZ]

It's from that puny Kiwi timber ;D

:D