460 for sale but is 38 inch bar required?

That's cool... I have lots of saws, too, but most people I know only have one saw and it has to do everything from felling to limbing, to bucking up a tree. In fact, most of my friends and family think I'm nuts to have so many saws.

If I had only one saw it would be a 70-80cc with a lightweight 28" bar.

 

Yep it is all fun and a great hobby, but it does provide me with free BTU's every year and I have done some bartering with the knowledge I have for repairing saws.

 

Ok good deal I was just wondering.....I have heard people run these set-ups before and just wondered how the saw pulled them....thanks for the reply!!!

Nice to know they have they guts to pull the long bar when needed....

 

Ok .... For 1 I did say without overbaring a saw, correct ? So your saying that a ms250 is rated for 28" ?? Even so can you run a little test for us if you have one as I think you will be surprised ? Secondly I was referring to the chain speed as a mathematically factual statement of it's relationship to bar length and sprocket ratios.
I cannot believe that I am the only saw guy on here who has experimented with this stuff. I have 18",20",24",28",32"and 36" lengths to fit one head. Someone want to make some time ? we will spin new chains off my roll and you supply a log and place to cut. Then we can play myth busters cutting and timing cookies all day. Then you can compile the findings and do an Excel sheet and post for all to read.
Been there done that crap already, but what the heck.....

 

Actually, never did the spreadsheet part. But my wife could be talked into that I suppose.

 

Can we agree that...

• the friction of the extra drivers moving through the slot of a longer bar consumes a small but >0 amount of power?
  
• the same additional friction plus the additional weight of the longer chain has a small but >0 negative effect on acceleration?
  
• the cutting action tends to be less-efficient at the nose, so having a bar so short that the nose is buried might slow the cut a bit as well -- conceivably enough so that in marginal cases a slightly longer bar that keeps the nose out of the wood could be competitive or even faster?
• For your average firewood cutter, none of this matters much at all?

 

he's fibbin! it would be ported too

 

I wholeheartedly agree !!!
And if it seems that I want to pick a fight, nothing is further from the truth. I'm actually a easy going guy. I just don't like when fact's are mixed with wives tales and someone saids.

 

So with a hot 3120 on a 10" cant do you want a 16" standard bar or a 24" fat belly?

 

Ok, well I didn't go against what I said in my first reply. I thought I made it easy to understand in that regard but I guess I failed. Try reading it again or asking someone to explain it better to you as I mentioned the extra power required.
If a small bar made a saw a screamer my 880 would not just sit on a shelf.

 

Screwloose you gotta ask yourself "why am I here" if it's to be condescending and argumentative you're right on target. There happens to be Another Site that's good for all that. Although I realize the troll to bridge ratio over there isn't that favorable. If your goal is to be a positive member of this community you may want to reconsider your delivery.

You've made a hypothesis that goes against popular belief, with nothing but talk to back it up. You may very well be right, but let's see you prove it with bars in wood. Like DexterDay said cant racers use the shortest bar possible for a reason. Gooder enough proof for me.

 

Another person who either didn't care enough to read, didn't understand, or in fact is just trying to be argumentative.

How did the manipulation of the extra weight or power consumption of cant racing with short bars vs long come into it ? I suppose if I have to sound condescending to explain actual fact then so be it. Did you read the part when I offered to back it up ? Only asking for a forum respected witness to document it ??
I feel like I'm being attacked.

 

I guess what I'm bothered with is that I even put a asterisk in my first reply stating that friction would slightly increase. So many times I'm told that a shorter bar and chain "goes" (for lack of a better word) "faster" than a long one. This is untrue. Now for cutting cookies with one down the next up and the third down the manipulation of extra bar length with increased weight will be detrimental. But in a single downward cut with the saw held in a fixture counterbalanced to keep the same cutting force on the tangent of the log changing bar lengths has little effect.
Just not that much friction in the chain in the groove. The rotational mass actually helps (think flywheel). And the weight means nothing in what I was saying.
I've also run a chainsaw mill and we experimented with different bar lengths (excess sticking out the side) with the longer bar cutting faster. Counter to what you'd think.

 

I don't see his post that way at all.
He's just calling it how he sees it.


You can calculate rotational mass vs hp loss. But as far as friction on a bar and chain I'm at a loss.

I think cobbling together a dyno with different chain lengths would be a good test (better than videos cutting too many varriables and in my opinion silly.) would tell the story.

 

Years ago we played around with a few things to settle arguments amongst some friends. One was a vertical fixture with linear bearings that clamped to the saw bar and allowed us to counterweight to adjust for constant cutting force regardless of bar length. We did timed cuts with a gas saw. And used a Milwaukee electric chainsaw with a wattmeter for power consumption measurements. Also a stroboscope tachometer was used.
This went on forever..... Filing vs grinding. Drags,rakers,skids,slides, depth gauges..... height. Get the picture ?
Like I said I'm willing to build another, but I don't want to do it all alone.

 

Screwloose.. I do not want to speak for you.. your math is right.. I think the difference here comes from a matter of perspective.. some are talking about racing, cutting cookies or cants.. where your original * of minimal increase in friction matters... when winning or losing is measured in hundredths of a second..

where you may be discussing cutting firewood.. my own limited experience in cutting firewood is you are right. we often block logs with a 462 if tree is an average 18 plus inch at but and get I grab a 25 bar instead of 20.. I always seen to get one notch that is too big.. it seems to cut faster when nose is out a bit.. certainly not any slower.. I got no experience cutting cants or cookies.. I assume the number of rakers actually cutting on same type of chain with different bar lengths would be same.. meaning if cutting a 18 in tree only 8 or 9 rakers are cutting on down stroke at any one time.. the longer bar may have more but they are not touching wood thereby adding friction once they clear tree and go around and re engage the wood