My first yoke

DAPNET Forums Archive › Forums › The Front Porch › Member Diaries › My first yoke

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 17 total)
1 2
  • Author
    Posts
  • September 20, 2012 at 11:41 pm #44066
    Andy Carson
    Moderator

    I still need to add the hardware for this yoke, but I thought I would share what I have been working on. There are many ways to go about making a yoke, but this is what I did. First, I found some logs. Finding the suitable logs that were the right size, a good price, in a form I could move, and not already cut up, proved to be a little tough. In the end, I used cherry because my neighbor was cutting 3 big cherry trees down in his field and I asked if I could have the butt ends. One was almost two feet across, so I felt I got very lucky with that one. Nice to be friendly with your neighbor… Cherry is a very nice wood to work with too, and pretty strong enough, I think. It does dent a bit easier than might be ideal, but I am building smaller yokes for now. I might reevaluate when I get to a 9 inch or so.

    Anyway, first I split the wood lengthwise with wedges and a sledgehammer. In the first log I did this with, the split wasn’t straight and the split rotated a bit as it split. This wasted a lot of wood and I wanted to avoid this again. I did two things to help prevent this. First, I ran a circular saw down the side where I wanted the log to split in a straight line. The saw only cuts a fraction of the log, but this fraction creates a weak point that the split tends to follow. Also, I made sure to put presse on a whole line of wedges spread out along the whole log before hammering hard enough to actually split the log. I find this to be better than causing a full split on one end and trying to chase it down the log and keep it straight.

    Heres a photo showing the cicular saw cut that acts as a guide

    564319_527271667288087_1747688013_n.jpg

    Then I semi squared with a hatchet

    301329_527271777288076_1764770607_n.jpg

    I built this jig to allow me to plane a beam flat and square using my router, pretty nice and the resulting beam is as flat as the floor the jig is rolling on.

    548707_527271903954730_43308713_n.jpg

    After the beam was square and flat, the rest went fast with a chisel and a hammer and a belt sander…

    Cherry is pretty!
    383518_527272473954673_530112425_n.jpg

    September 21, 2012 at 1:41 am #75014
    Andy Carson
    Moderator

    Here a couple more photos…
    I like wide neck seats. OK, so this is just a 5 inch yoke, but I thought I would just build it how I plan to build bigger yokes in the future. I figure it’s good practice.
    486759_527272047288049_833447092_n.jpg
    Here’s a side shot. You might be thinking that there isn’t alot of belly to this yoke. It’s true, but I plan on using a hardware design that provides the bulk of the depth.
    397261_527272277288026_294843524_n.jpg
    Here’s my quarter split cherry “boneyard” for future yokes. I screwed up a couple splits, but my neighbor was very generous, so I should have enough to make a full set of yokes to 10 inches!
    269156_527271533954767_1403026366_n.jpg

    September 21, 2012 at 10:03 am #75009
    Does’ Leap
    Participant

    Andy:

    Nice work. I really like your router jig – ingenious! Hope the yoke works well for you.

    George

    September 21, 2012 at 11:47 am #75010
    Tim Harrigan
    Participant

    Andy, nice work. The only suggestion I have based on what I can see is that the neck seats could be rounded more front to back so that when the yoke rotates in a pull you do not have any sharp corners bearing the load. Maybe you did this already, hard to see in the pictures.

    September 21, 2012 at 12:53 pm #75015
    Andy Carson
    Moderator

    I made the center of the neck seat 1/4 inch higher than the edges. The total width of the neck seat is ~4.5 inches, though, so it looks pretty flat. Do you think 1/4 inch is too little of an arch?

    Perhaps you were refering more to the immediate edge of the neck seat, Tim. That does look pretty sharp now that you point it out. I think I’ll round it off more either way. Thanks for the review!

    September 21, 2012 at 4:11 pm #75011
    Tim Harrigan
    Participant

    I think the general goal is to have a surface contact area that does not change much as the yoke rotates.

    September 21, 2012 at 4:44 pm #75021
    Kevin Cunningham
    Participant

    Nice yoke Andy. What is nice about raising the calves is the chance to make a progression of yokes. I am only three yokes in and my skill at making them is already a lot better. They are rounder and more shapely, and smoother in the neck seat. I can see this being more and more important as they pull more and more. I am jealous over the all the hard woods y’all have. I am still using fir, but recently I had a chance to see a couple of “barn hangers” around here and they also seem to be made of fir. I guess you have to work with what you have. An old timer suggested yew, we do have them, they are rare, but apparently tough as nails.

    September 21, 2012 at 5:38 pm #75016
    Andy Carson
    Moderator

    @Tim Harrigan 36607 wrote:

    I think the general goal is to have a surface contact area that does not change much as the yoke rotates.

    This discussion might go in a very interesting direction…

    Shaping a neck seat seems to be a process of making compromises for different tasks. A small diameter semi-circular neck seat (in cross section) always keeps the same contact surface as the yoke rotates though a wide array of angles, and in some ways might be ideal. At the same time, small diameter semi-circular neck seats distribute the load onto the smallest possible area of the neck for a given neck seat width. In the other extreme, a flat bottom distributes the load over the largest possible surface, but only at one yoke angle. A flat bottom could provide maximal comfort so long as the yoke tilt is controlled and doesn’t assume unexpected angles. If the hitch point or load fall outside of design parameters for a given flat bottom yoke (which is probably easy), the yoke will assume a steep angle, and be drawn onto an uncomfortable corner. As loads are always somewhat unpredictable, I think a perfectly flat bottom wouldn’t be the best choice in most situations. But how much angle would be ideal??? Perhaps this depends partly on what you want to do.

    I am guessing here, but I would imagine that people who pull widely varied loads or very heavy loads would prefer neck seats with a very circular cross section. This keeps the seat predictable, enough though it is smaller than it could be. Does this ring true? Conversely, I would guess that people who primarily pull lighter, more predicable loads for long periods of time would be drawn to flatter bottoms as thier yokes do not assume such a wide array of angles that must be compensated for by a small diameter semicircular neck seat, and the load is spread over as wide a surface as possible. Does this ring true?

    Perhaps the Tillers elliptical neck seat cross section draws a compromise between these two extremes for the sake of maximal versatility. Perhaps if you know the nature of your work, you would lean one way or the other.

    An alternative way to control yoke tilt and keep tilt in an acceptable range for a given yoke (allowing a flatter bottom than would otherwise be possible), is to provide a mechanism to adjust the chain attachment point on the yoke. It is non-tradiational, but with this, you can simply move the chain attachment point to the rear of the yoke for heavier loads, and towards the center for lighter loads, or loads with a heavy tongue. I didn’t invent this, I truly borrowed it from Andy Van Ords design, but I am going to make mine with few more intermediate adjustments. In a perfect world, this system provides the large surface area of a mostly flat neck seat design and provides a mechanism that gives as much (maybe more) “tilt accommidation” as a circular neck seat design.

    September 21, 2012 at 6:30 pm #75012
    Tim Harrigan
    Participant

    I think most folks would prefer to avoid making frequent adjustments. In some types of work such a logging the loads and terrain can change frequently so a versatile design is desired by many. You are probably right that it is possible to design for specific loads and flatter might be better in some cases. Overall, the loads with change, yoke rotation can be an issue, and also how the team likes to carry their head, low, middle or high. And the neck is mostly soft tissue so the yoke can conform to the neck without undue pressure. The other issue is having the yoke slide back. So having a constant contact surface is a bit of overstatement, but you for sure want to avoid unnecessary pressure points such as you might get with a more angular design.

    September 22, 2012 at 10:30 am #75017
    Andy Carson
    Moderator

    i agree this system would be annoying to a logger. I mostly do field work, though. I imagine that when i find the “sweet spot” between sliding and rotating (but not rotating too much) it will remain constant for that implement. Personally, I am not annoyed by having to move the attachemnt point for different implements, as i don’t often use more than one implement in a day. I like the idea of having as wide of a contact surface as possible when they are pulling medium to heavy loads for long periods. So much of what I do is an experiment to some degree, and i will see how it goes.

    PS. I am still going to bevel the edges on the neck seat more, as i agree mine are too angular right now. I see this discussion more as what shape the bulk of the bottom of the neck seat should have (IE small diameter semi circle, large diameter semicircle, ellipicle, mostly flat, or a combination shape). I have seen a variety of neck seat profiles, and have always wondered if the variety represent personal preferance, oversight on the part of the yoke builder, regional variations in tradition,or adaptations to specific jobs. There have to be advantages and disavantages to different profiles…

    September 24, 2012 at 2:42 am #75018
    Andy Carson
    Moderator

    Here’s a few photos with the hardware added. You’ll notice the solid steel bows. I like that there is more flexibility to shape these to match the bottom of the neck, which (at least in my cattle) is not the half circle formed by most wooden bows. I also like that the steel doesn’t change shape if you forget to put brace the bows or put them back in the yoke. It also doesn’t develop cracks along the bottom from over straining and I will be shocked if I ever break them or have to replace them for some other reason. The steel is also about 1/4 the cost, while being more than twice as strong, and this is hard to ignore. This surely wasn’t true 150+ years ago…
    156184_528697493812171_833439770_n.jpg
    This photo shows the hardware I was talking about. Again, I can’t claim that I invented this, as it was inspired by andy Van Ord’s desing on the yoke he built for me earlier this year. I shifted the verticle plate back a bit on this design and added a few more holes for agustments. This gives 4 options for finding the sweet spot between rotation and sliding. It might only used a few of these holes, but I’ll have to see. There’s room for refinement in future yokes, but I think there is a lot of potential for this concept. In case anyone is curious, the most forward adjustment is at the botttom center of the yoke, for I always have the option of using this yoke without the “tilt adjustment” holes is I want. No loss, and I see it, just more options.
    527546_528697897145464_1004132688_n.jpg
    Here’s another view from the top. I used shaft collars to hold the bows in place. I like the idea of having a continuous adjustment without having to keep track of a bunch of spacers of various sizes. I’ll have to see it carrying a hex key gets old of if I like this system at all. I can always drill a hole in the bows and use a key if I want.
    60653_528698097145444_1628037054_n.jpg

    September 24, 2012 at 1:08 pm #75022
    Kevin Cunningham
    Participant

    I like your hard ware innovations. I am really curious to see how the multiple attachment point rotates the yoke. This is something I have been wanting out of my most recent yoke. I have a basic dropped ring and I feel that when I am using a chain which is most of the time the yoke doesn’t tilt enough for the steers to really push against the flat of the yoke it still rides the rounded corner of the ellipse. This might be part of why my off steer has had the tendency to give up when pulling heavier loads. How did you bend your metal bows?. I want to do steel bows next time as well, since I lack the right woods and ability to bend wooden bows.

    September 24, 2012 at 6:34 pm #75019
    Andy Carson
    Moderator

    Thanks Kevin, I will report on the chain attachment point. Like I said, my big yoke uses this type of attachment and I like it, so I think I’ll like this too. I tried to bend the steel for these bows cold with a long cheater, but just ended up messing them up. I also tried to heat them with charcoal and a blow dryer, but that didn’t heat them up enough. I ended up taking them to a blacksmith, bent them and showed me how to do it with a torch and an anvil. The sharp angle at the tip was not as hard as I guessed it would be. The hardest thing was getting the curves on the edges consistant and keeping the distance between the tops of the bows parallel and a constant distance appart. Nice thing about steel, though, is you can usually bend it back if you go too far. I will try my hand at my next set of bows, but I paid for these. Still cheaper than wood, but paying someone to bend them makes the price only a little cheaper than wood. In case anyone is curious, the arch shape is known as an “equilaternal gothic arch.” Here’s how to draw one, in anyone is interested. http://www.builderbill-diy-help.com/gothic-arch.html I did make a wooden form of what I wanted the arch to look like. The blacksmith found this very useful as he could compare his bend to the form at many points to make sure he was getting it right.

    September 24, 2012 at 7:10 pm #75013
    Tim Harrigan
    Participant

    I think steel bows were/are commonly used in Australia. I saw some pictures once, don’t remember where exactly. Might have been on the Rural Heritage site. Maybe I can find them.

    September 24, 2012 at 9:22 pm #75023
    Kevin Cunningham
    Participant

    So Andy, let’s hear your opinion on why the gothic arch style bow is better than a simple curve bow. I have seen bows like this pictured in various places and I can envision why it might have some benefit but I am wondering what your opinion is. Have you used bows like this?

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 17 total)
1 2
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.