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 to 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