Several years ago I asked a question on another site which shall remain nameless about the loads of logs many were buying and havein dumped in their yards. The answers I got all seemed to be pure D bull crap to me for 1 reason or another. Whether they weren't being honest, didn't know or were exaggerating I have no idea. So, I will ask the same question here where it seems you all are more of the common sense schooled individuals. Question; If you purchase an 8 cubic yard load of logs, then CSS said load of logs, do you get around 8 CY of splits? I fully realize that there are a lot of variables to take into account but surely some one has kept some sort of track of what they was buying as to what they end up with. I mean, the answer that I bought 8 cubic yards of wood and that's what I got just seems a little vague to me. BTW; this question is a product of a case of cabin fever. 35 MPH winds and cold aint helpin none right now.
It seems like I may have answered a similar question in the past......somewhere. I can only relate my own experience, and I've only gotten 2 log loads. First one was 10 cords, and the second was 20. I don't remember exactly how much I ended up with, but I do remember being nicely surprised that once I got it all css, I ended up with pretty close to what I paid for. Depending on how picky you want to get, you'd need to account for bark loss, splitter trash, and kerfs too. I did that for the heck of it one day when I was bored and was surprised how much wood ended up as chips from the saw.
Thanks. Like I said, there are a lot of variables to be considered. I just got to wunderin is all after reading a debate here the other day about air space in the stacks of wood. Kinda like the stove manufacturers claims about cubic feet of far box's. You know what I mean? They say you got 3 cubic feet of box, but is that actually the amount of wood you can cram in it or are they just going by a solid volume deal? Like I said, CF is settin in. Plus, if I don't ask, I don't learn.
I have never measured the before and after so this is only theory. There are some variables that would come into play. I think the before and after cubic dimensions would be very similar if the pile of logs were straight and the diameters were on the smaller side so that the voids between the logs was minimized when piled. The larger and less straight the logs are, the greater the voids between would be. This would artificially increase the overall cubic yards of the pile resulting in the css pile being less because there are smaller and less voids in the css pile. my$0.02.
I can't speak to any experience with the matter but this definition seems to make sense to me: 239.33 STANDARD MEASUREMENTS OF WOOD. In all contracts for sale of wood the term "cord" shall mean 128 cubic feet of wood, bark, and air, if cut in four-foot lengths; and if the sale is of "sawed wood," a cord shall mean 110 cubic feet when ranked, or 160 cubic feet when thrown irregularly or loosely into a conveyance for delivery to the purchaser; and if the sale is of "sawed and split wood," a cord shall mean 120 cubic feet, when ranked, and 175 cubic feet when thrown irregularly and loosely into a conveyance for delivery. If a measurement is made by weight, the term "cord" or any other term used to describe freshly cut wood shall be based on 79 cubic feet of solid wood content per cord. The weight per cord may vary by species or species group. In case of any dispute when the parties have not otherwise agreed in writing to the weight per cord by species or species group, the weight most recently established by the commissioner of natural resources prevails. In all contracts for sale of wood, the term "board foot" means 144 cubic inches of wood measured in any combination of length, thickness, and width. If a measurement or scale is made of logs, Scribner's decimal C rule is the standard rule for determining board feet log scale. When measuring or scaling logs, each log must be scaled individually by the largest number of even feet in its length above eight and under 24 feet. All logs of 24 feet or more in length must be scaled as two or more logs. This section does not apply to finished lumber measured in nominal dimensions.
I will properly follow internet forum etiquette by answering a question, with another question! Are you asking because you want the answer solely based on buying unsplit wood? or are you asking because you are trying to compare the space requirements and load size estimates for unsplit rounds VS split stacks? I have found that rounds stacked neatly end up taking very close to the same amount of space the splits will take up from the same rounds. The splits will take up slightly more space sometimes.
Probably nearly as reliable...straight from the State of MN: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=239.33
No, just askin. If I had to buy wood I guess I wood not burn wood. It's more of a question that I would like to put in my little black book of information that lives in the back of my mind. Kind of like all the information I have gleaned over a life time of working a very well rounded hard labor work that when I need the info I have some recollection of it. I guess what really tripped the trigger of my mind was Monday when I got the free wood from down the road dumped in my yard. The first load was a 14 foot buy 6 foot wide dump trailer with logs that ranged any where from 5 inches in diameter to 18 inches in diameter. They were stacked in the trailer pretty tight and were heaped a lot higher than the 3 foot sides of the trailer. After bucking and stacking that first load I have what looks to be about if not a little under a cord of rounds sitting there. My math skills are not very good since if it aint on a tape measure I cant figure it out but 6x14=84. 84x3 give or take =252. If my math is wrong, please correct me. That all being said, and this is from my own experience, I know that when I get that stack of rounds split and stacked where I want then they are going to take up a much smaller foot print than the first 2 steps in the operation. I doubt very much that I will have 252 cubic feet of splits. I would be happy as a Jap if I did but I don't think I will. My question was not posed as buying wood in cord measurements from a legal stand point. It was really just asking a question of yield per whatever. Kinda like buying seed corn or whatever. Kinda like when a guy splits up a whole mess a wood and throws it in a pile till you can get time to stack it right and you look at that pile and say to yer self WOW that's a lot of wood, then you get to stackin it and it looks awful small. I'm just sayin is all.
Our log truck bunks measure out to 53 cubic yards with 24 foot wood on. Usually 7-8 cord on a load. Not all wood is always 24'. Sometimes there are 8', 10' & 12'ers doubled up. FYI
Good point, same concept as log lengths. I never stack my rounds but others (Backwoods Savage) should have an idea how it compares. This would have been my guess.
So, I guess I am looking at all wrong but lets look at it from another stand point. I am a landscaper. Not the ride on a lawn mower run a weed eater landscaper that many equate to that profession. When I need materials at a job site many if not most are rock, sand, and soil. So I go to the quarry and get X amount tons of river rock to finish a foundation landscape. The rocks themselves are any where from 1 inch to 3 inch diameter. I can only legally run with so much weight on my trucks so I know how much to let them load at the quarry. 3 inch diameter rock gets to be a pretty good sized pile in the back of the dump truck. Next day, I am starting on a retaining wall job. I need a load of sand of the same amount of weight and cubic feet as the rock from the day before. I get loaded and scale the sand and I have a much smaller amount of product in the box. Difference being is the size of the aggregate I am hauling to my job site because of the space each little piece of sand takes up as compared to the larger pieces of the river rock. Now I realize that the weight issue don't come into play with far wood but on a purely volume to size issue it do. Not tryin to start a pizzin match neither just want to know. And its getting about time for a good debate since spring is a ways off any hows huh?
You want a debate? What kind of truck are you hauling that sand with? What kind of oil do you run in it and how often do you change it? I used to buy loads of logs and the guy hauling them said the logs were approx. 10 face cord of wood. I bought 7 loads off him and everytime they stacked up to real close to 10 face cord at 16". The logs were all different lengths and sizes but the guy said he scaled them. He must have been pretty good cause it was what he said.. See what I did there? I said "face" cords, now the debate will really start.
OICU812. Good thing the guy didn't have a truck load of young men named Rick. Cuz unless they was 3 deep they wouldn't make a full cord. And I change earl every 3000 miles in the Ferd dumpers with 10w30. And some times I can even hire a guy that has a valid drivers license to drive one from time to time. Not an easy task around here any more I'll have ya know.
The "sand vs rock" is different from the "rounds VS splits". Because sand is so small in size, when piled up it will have little to no space between each piece of sand, so there is almost no wasted space. Rounds stacked end up having a lot of wasted space around them because round objects don't lay flat against each other, they only touch at one small point, and then you get large triangular spaces at 4 points around them. Splits because they are smaller, and shaped as square, rectangular, triangular, and round, end up with smaller spaces between them if you stack them neatly and tight. However, splits are smaller so you end up with a higher qauanity of empty spaces, but each space smaller than the space left by rounds. So it ends up working out to be about the same. This is assuming fairly straight wood of course... Fro an average sized round, lets say 10 to 20" diameter, you would split into 4 pieces. So that means there is about 4 times as many small wasted spaces in the split stack as compared to the same wood stacked as rounds, which would have bigger wasted spaces, but 1/4 of the number of them. Which ends up taking up about the same space. This drawing depicts it a bit....
This gets my vote. I say it's a wash. I can pretty accurately guesstimate how much wood I need to fill one of my stacking locations by stacking up the rounds. Seems to make an identical size stack of splits. Just what I have observed - YMMV.
You make a valid point but, I was talking about going from log length to rounds to splits. I'm just saying that in a real time scenario like I had Monday some cubic feet of wood some how vanished. The first dump trailer load was a conservative 252 cubic feet of logs. After bucking them to rounds and stacking them I have MAYBE a cord. I do realize that some of the wood on the load was not straight as an arrow thus leaving more air space on the load. But having never bought a load of logs I have no idea how straight the logs would be. And like jetjr just posted, and the nice stacks I see that you all make, I don't see a lot of air between splits. I guess I thought it a simple question. If you buy 8 cords of logs, do you end up with 8 cords of splits when you get said splits are stacked. No big deal I guess. Sides, my geometry sucks due to not paying attention in high school.
Tomato, tomato. A CYD is a CYD no matter what, A ton is a ton no matter what. sand, gravel, wood , rock.
