I see on both the Canadian and US WM sites that the standard width heads on the 40, 50 and 70 are not an option. I have a 70 on order with the standard width head. It's so seldom that I come across logs so large that they won't fit on my standard 40, so I figured there's no need for the added expense and blade costs for the wide.
I spoke with my dealer yesterday, who confirmed that WM is only offering wide head options currently. I do not know why, but presumably they are selling many more wide head options these days.
I may also seldom encounter large logs but seldom is often enough for me to wish for a W I D E.
The standard offering is not surprising.
With the LT35 I refused enough logs or struggled with 36+" logs that the wide head has been worth it on the LT50. Even if the wide isn't needed but 10% of the time, that's enough to justify the initial and ongoing expense (longer blades).
I'd expect you'll get longer sharp life out of the longer blades, as there are more teeth doing the work. So there would be a benefit there too.
The wide head option might be an asset when trying to sell it.
GAB
Certainly all very valid points. Thanks fellas. Future blade availability is also a factor for me. While I doubt there will be any issue in sourcing bands for the time being, there will definitely be plenty available for the wide head in years to come.
I am debating upgrading to the wide, especially if my order hasn't been started.
After watching
@Crossroads wide head several times I have to admit I wish I had one. Even though it isn't that often I'd need it, I KNOW now I'd love it if I did have one ;)
I'm sure WM just went with them as standard is it really makes sense (to me). Wider is better :)
Though, maybe not the debarker but otherwise it's better IMO
I had a regular width 40 and have had a Wide for 6 years, would not go back.
Yes, wide has a couple issues, but certainly, I would not go back to any non wide.
Just be aware if you buy a wide head mill to get into the wide slab business, all the loading equipment also has to be able to handle the monster logs involved. As well as lifting those slabs each step of the process. (HEAVY). :uhoh2:
Having the extra width would make sawing even smaller logs easier because your not pushing the limits. When you approach max capacity you have to be much more conscious of log positioning, any bow and horns, etc. Not having to deal with those things as often would be nice.
Just my opinion, I would not let the blade availability sway my opinion either way. As long as you can get blades, you will be able to get the 158" blades. I went with the 50 wide when I upgraded (as you said, I don't think there was any other option), and am very pleased with it, but "regular" blades will be no problem. Way too many saws running them.
Doc
There was a guy on FB that had a fab shop, he made a wide head out of his WM (before WM started offering the option, I think). What I liked about his was he made it almost like a reciever hitch. Pull a pin, and extend the head. Then with a longer blade, you could saw wide. If you had a lot of normal sawing to do, pull the pin and retract the head, and you could run 158" blades again. It was pretty slick. He got so many requests, he sold his mill and started offering the mod in his shop. He was too busy to saw😂
The only thing that I dislike about the W I D E head is that I don't and will not ever have one. :-\
We recently purchased an lt-30 with the intention of widening it to run standard lt-70 bands. After a bit of contemplation, we decided it would be a challenge for it to saw 39" between the guides with the 25hp Kohler. We sold it. If we can find a diesel powered or a bigger gas-powered mill for a good price, it will get widened. For our day-to-day sawing, I like our 47 hp Yanmar and standard width. We could frequently use a bigger gap between the guides, but we make it work.
I haven't needed a wider head since today. :uhoh:
Thanks guys. Here in NW Ontario there are very few logs that would require the wide, but they do exist from time to time. With all of the valued input from you, I think I will request the upgrade to the Super 70 wide. I guess at this point, what's another $1500 for the option. At least I could never wish for it later.
If you don't need it, then don't use it.
But if you need, use it. ;)
I bought a mill that will cut 20 foot logs.
After I started sawing I realized with a 16 foot log I have 4 feet to spare instead of inches.
A nice upgrade that did cost more, but worth it.
I bought a OWB that takes a 54 inch stick. I thought I was going to heat a green house and a garage. Garage might still happen but no greenhouse.
Now if a stick of wood has a knob on it, so what. I have plenty of room. No need to fill the firewood full.
Go big!!!!!
My first OWB took a 36" stick and was a down draft style of burn box. Early on I had a good fire going and began to toss in some bigger wood, one of those 36" sticks got stuck half way in and half out, well I could not manage to pry the stick loose to get it to fall into place and the red hot fire began to turn that stick into a roman candle shooting right back at me!! Had to pull it back out and toss it into the snow. After that I went back to smaller pieces!!
I learned quick that a long stick of wood is a bother unless it was 4 inches and under.
Like the first time I filled it. :P
All my big wood is cut into nothing longer then 2 feet.
My back and my splitter tell me 16"-20" is ideal for my stove even though the stove takes 36" firewood.
barbender (https://forestryforum.com/board/index.php?action=profile;u=1286)... I seen that Video on the Gentleman that turned his woodmizer into a optional wide head and regular.... Absolutely Genius! What I thought what made it so good was fabricating those metal tubular channels to fit inside the woodmizer framework... That is absolutely as solid as it gets....and what makes it even better he can slide back down to regular and use the regular blades.... To me ..thats top of the line enginneering! I really appreciated that Video!
Jim's post reminded me of my Friend Bill's OWB that was just replaced. It was a top loader that took 5' sticks and the firebox was 5.5 x 3.5' by about 4' deep. At the end of each sawing session I would bring up a forkload of slabs and dump them in so that Bill didn't have to do it after he got home. Had to be very careful to not overload it by having too much slide off the forks into the box, otherwise you had to climb up on top with all those flames coming up at you as you tried to yank stuff back out and flip it on the ground. Bad enough without bunker gear, but worse in the summer when one might have shorts on.
If you dropped a 18" x 5' log chunk in it and got it wrong it was a bear to 'fix it'.
He replaced that boiler last fall with a smaller, more efficient, front loader. He started out by telling me to cut 40" logs, then changed it after a week (and a few 'issues') to 36". Last I heard 24-36" is just fine with him. :)
Now tell me again, why are we talking about woodburners on this thread? What happened to food, ...or chickens?
My fault. ;)
Same here: my gasifier will take 30" but I went from cutting 24 to 18 for ease of handling. I don't really need the xtra capacity anyway.
Back on subject: definitely go wide, if nothing else you don't have to fight the guides past logs with carbunkles (intended misspelling smiley_smug01 ) and flares on them.
Quote from: jpassardi on February 09, 2024, 07:03:07 AMSame here: my gasifier will take 30" but I went from cutting 24 to 18 for ease of handling. I don't really need the xtra capacity anyway.
Back on subject: definitely go wide, if nothing else you don't have to fight the guides past logs with carbunkles (intended misspelling smiley_smug01 ) and flares on them.
I'd love to see the details on your gasifier! That's a projects for another day.
I assume the wide mill owners don't have wave problems while milling width capacity boards. I have not read of any problems.
Do you need to use wider and thicker blade on a wide head?
The wider apart your blade guides are the more susceptible your blade is to produce a wave when encountering knots, twisted grain, etc. same as with a non-wide.
Proper blade guide alignment, blade selection, sharp & properly set blades, proper drive belt tension, and sawing speed control are all paramount to reduce the possibility of wave problems, again, same as with a non-wide. :thumbsup:
It's real easy to saw too fast and make waves with a wide model when cutting wide cuts. Once a sawyer gets used to slowing down a bit, flat cuts return. Don't ask how I know... smiley_headscratch
It is better to run wider thicker blades generally. I'm running 1.5" .045 thick blades and get better results than with 1.25" blades.
No regrets on getting the wide head. At the time it was only an $800 upgrade and worth every penny.
I'm going to be stretching my 2008 LT40HDD51WR to a widehead later this year, at whatever point my band stash and workload are at a low point concurrently.
Interestingly, Wood-Mizer says the widehead has a 6" increased capacity, but the head is actually 6.5" wider, and the bands are 13" longer, not 12".
I am just going enough wider to make mine a wide head, no more. I know someone who has an adjustable LT50 up to 47". That really is not what I'm after. I will find another way to tackle anything a wide head can't.