Older stihl's

[ZeroJunk]

Or the Husqvarnas where they took the clutch cover off with the brake on and managed to put it back on and just tightened as best they could.

[bandmiller2]

a lot of the brake problems stem from the "safety" recommendation to set the brake before you start the saw, why not just keep body parts away from the chain. Frank C.

[beenthere]

I don't start mine with the brake on (set). And I seldom (almost never) set the brake on purpose while cutting.

I actually think when the brake is set, that removing one hand from the saw handle to re-set the brake leaves the saw "out of control" for a moment. Enough so that I don't do it, unless I rest the tip of the bar on wood.

[HolmenTree]

I just found some more pictures and write ups of new introduced Husqvarna chain brakes in 1973, I hate to derail this "Stihl" thread with these though. 
Nothing so far yet of Stihl mentioning about their chainbrakes in the early to mid '70s, seems they were scared to turn people off about them. Had read one good write up about Stihl's new 045, they talked about every feature on that saw but declined to mention the QuickStop chain brake. ???

I remember as a faller in the late '70s the company I worked for enforced helmet screens, ear muffs and chain brakes. One of the old fallers speaks his mind at that safety meeting and yells "First you make me blind wearing that screen, then make me deaf wearing ear muffs ,now you want me to snag my saw on every stick in the bush with that *DanG chain brake!"

Using your saw's chain brake as a parking brake is not a bad thing. For some one whose run saws quite a bit that's your own business. But when I teach a green horn that's the first thing I teach.
You don't release your hand from the top handle to set or disengage it. To set the brake you roll your hand over and push the lever with the knuckles or back of your hand. To pull the lever back your thumb is still wrapped around the top handle and then pull the lever back with your free fingers. Your other hand is always on the rear handle.

Some forestry areas like B.C.have laws where pro loggers have to set their chain brakes from tree to tree.

[ZeroJunk]

I'm more of a mechanic than any big time cutter. So, from that standpoint trying to drop start a flooded saw holding the throttle wide open with your right hand is a good way to saw a hole in your leg. And, wandering around with a running saw in a bunch of limbs, rocks etc. is another good use of the brake. But, for those of us who started out with no brakes it is hard to get in the habit.

[weimedog]

I think those old Stihl's are cool...its just I've been jinxed with every one I've dealt with! Until I can find a cheap source of ignition's I sort of run away every time one begins to lurk around my garage...

[Al_Smith]

Well that can be a problem .An OEM Stihl coil can set you back a hundred and up .

There are some aftermarket a lot cheaper but I have no idea how well they work .

[HolmenTree]

As I mentioned earlier about the Husqvarna 240 / 162 revolutionizing the industry with a design we still have today almost 40 years later.
Well here is the saw that was voted the first major advancement previously (even the Swedes admitted it) with favorable power/weight ratio, the 1968 Stihl 041AV at 5.5 h.p. and 12.5 lbs.
Stihl introduced the first AV anti vibe in 1966.
My 1st piic is a 1970 041 AV Electronic with "new" ignition, also notice the Oregon sawchain logo in the Stihls ad. Stihl saws were once fitted with Oregon sawchain.
Stihl's Oil O Matic sawchain was introduced in 1971.

Last pic is the saw that I vote was the worlds "first best lightweight" saw, the 1966 Stihl 040 at 5.5 h.p. 12 lbs [15 lbs with b/c.]


  

 

[HolmenTree]

Here's some interesting information for all interested in Stihl versus Oregon sawchain.

Stihl has been manufacturing sawchain since the late 1920's and Oregon started in the late 1940's.
But Stihl didn't introduce their sawchain to North America until January 1971. It was also not until 1974 when Stihl started manufacturing their sawchain in Wil ,Switzerland.
So having said all that, prior to 1971 all Stihl saws sold in North America were out fitted with Oregon chain.
Here's some good reading from Dec. 1970.

  

  

[SawTroll]

Or the Husqvarnas where they took the clutch cover off with the brake on and managed to put it back on and just tightened as best they could.

With the brake in the clutch cover, it is important that the brake is in the "off" position, before you take the clutch cover off. Not making sure of that is just stupid (I have done it myself - ONCE)!   :D

[SawTroll]

..... 
Last pic is the saw that I vote was the worlds "first best lightweight" saw, the 1966 Stihl 040 at 5.5 h.p. 12 lbs [15 lbs with b/c.]
  ......

Those brutto SAE hp isn't comparable at all to the hp that is used for power rating today. There isn't even a conversion ratio, as the SEA bto hp are calculated, not measured.

The German brands used them longer than any other brands, but mostly (if not only) on the North American markets. The 090 was rated at both 13 and 15 of those hp, but was rated at 8.5 and later 9.0 PS (hp(m)) in Germany at the same time.  ;)

[SawTroll]

When discussing different kinds of hp, the current situation is that there is slightly less than 2% differense between hp(m) and hp(i).
Some brands (that mostly state the "weaker" hp(m) (= German PS) numbers, often write bhp in their specs - but the fact is that both hp(m) and hp(i) are bhp - it just is an outdated designation, related to the way both those kinds of hp is measured.

Then other brands some times use hp(m), and some times hp(i), to add to the confusion, like Husky listing both kinds for the 560xp/562xp  in Europe, but only (the lower) hp(i) numbers in the US. :

The best way to compare is just using the kW numbers, and disregarding the hp numbers.

[HolmenTree]

The best way to compare is just using the kW numbers, and disregarding the hp numbers.

Yes that's how I do it too, thanks for clarifying SawTroll.
But back in the day everyone over here in North America were using those h.p. #s, McCulloch, Homelite, Stihl etc etc so the #s were all reliable for what they used them for.......I'm not saying some of these companies were not over rating them a bit, but they had a #.

[Al_Smith]

The HP rating deal has always had a tad bit of error .Even Briggs was noted for it .For example I have two engines both with the same model number and displacement .One is rated at 18 HP the other at 19.5 .

Rule of thumb for 2 cycles is usually a tad over 1 HP per cubic inch .