logging forcart

My son made a conversion for his Pioneer cart to use it for a skidding arch.He has two slip hooks near the middle and two grab hooks near the outside.You run the chain from the log through the slip hook and over and catch it in the grab hook. With a flip of the chain you can unhook even under good tension.This maybe what your’s are for.

carl ny

Yours is a lot different than ours but the hooks are about the same,only we have two slip hooks in the middle about 4″ apart.

carl ny

Great discussion. I hope others will ad their designs in here too. I am still in the process of building a fore cart/logging arch and hope to finish it later this fall. I have a start from an old portable air compressor we used to use. I am torn though whether to keep going or to just save a little money to buy one. I found an Amish Pioneer dealer near me that has a draft size fore cart with brakes, bench seat, new tires and has only been used a couple times and is asking $1000. He has had it a couple years and used it as a loaner and demo unit. That is a lot of money but time I gather the stuff I need and spend endless hours trying to perfect one it may be worth it. Anyway pictures, pictures, pictures, I would appreciate them as well as I’m sure others would to. I have searched through the past posts and there is good discussions but no picture previous to the switch to the new site. Thanks, Paulk

The arch that my son built looks alot like the one that Mark Cowdrey builds.He has a picture of it posted back in January,2013 under the topic of the Les Barden arch.That’s where he got the idea.

carl

I have used a Barden cart for about 15 years. It has been the right tool for my applications as a one man crew in marked softwood. The ground clearance is 14″, enough to clear most any chainsaw cut stump, but low enough to making climbing off and on easy and safe. The relatively slight angle of lift keeps the center of gravity low and adds to the cart’s stability and safety on down hill skids. And as Carl pointed out, it is very maneuverable. I have loaded the cart by hand on my pickup by rolling it on planks fron a banking.

I’m not saying other styles wouldn’t work as well or better in other applications, but I am saying there is a lot of understated efficiency in the Barden style cart. Les spent years refining this tool. It’s far more than just another backyard project.

Carl and others-
Great discussion here. I want to make a couple of points concerning Carl’s thoughts. First, I would argue with the contention that a higher cart is a less maneuverable. The degree to which a cart moves easily in the woods is based primarily on its width, rather than its height. Given the fact that I can adjust my wheel width on the Plowden cart, I can match the relatively narrow width of the Barden cart or go wider for more stability on steep ground. Having used both a Barden cart and the Plowden arch in the woods, my arch is every bit as maneuverable. And, I can roll over debris that used to catch up our Barden cart at the bottom. Stumps are not so much the issue as they are usually cut short in any case. Second, the argument over high hitch point versus more lift is difficult to quantify. I have never seen any factual evidence to indicate that the higher hitch point somehow negates the extra lift I get on the arch. The extra lift, however, is measurable and on some stems it makes the difference between being able to get a large stick moving and leaving it on the ground. I have never found my teams to be any less willing at the end of day based on the fact that my angle of draft is a few inches higher than that on the Barden cart. I well understand that as draft angle rises beyond the optimal point that you take away from the horses ability to pull that load, but the more of the stem you get off the ground the less friction you are fighting. Also, note that the angle on the Barden cart, or any cart for that matter, is higher than optimal in terms of the perfect draft angle. Uphill, flat, or downhill, the arch works really well. And, so does the Barden cart. To the point that getting up and down all day is tiring, this is absolutely true. However, I find that I like walking as I skid from the stump in most cases, even if I can ride. I typically only ride when ground is flat or I am forwarding with multiple stems in the hitch. I take issue with the notion that a high arch means that I am more inclined to take “shortcuts” in felling that are based on making my skidding easier. Yes, I do try to make the work as easy as possible for both myself and my team, but that is just common sense rather than cutting corners. I put just as much energy into the saw work as everyone else, and I still have plenty enough to get up and down off the arch when I choose to do so. I chain and hitch my own loads in the woods as well, and the arch does not make this process any more difficult. Finally, one the distinct advantages of my arch over the Barden cart is that I have multiple chain slots on the bar so that I can take three or more chained stems. The allows for greater efficiency when needed, as multiple stems can be drawn in under the main beam of the arch. And, if needed I can move the wheels farther apart to make forwarding with multiple stems easier – more space between the wheels means you can fit more wood between. The point here is that just as much thought has gone into John’s arch design as into the Barden cart, as he has more than 20 years in the woods with horses. His arch designs are far from backyard welding projects, and I would challenge anyone out there to take his arch and a Barden cart and use them both in the woods, as I have, and see what you think. I think there are advantages and disadvantages to both, and realizing what they are makes the decision of which tool to use easier to make…
-Brad

Hey Brad, I am not inclined toward taking up challenges, but my comment are based on just such comparisons (although not personally using John’s design) over many years.

While admittedly overstated, my points were not meant to dismiss other models, rather to point out that efficiency in draft animal use can be subtle, and that if logging were merely about hooking to logs and dragging them, then a cart like John’s is extremely well designed for that. However, as I pointed out, there are many aspects to logging with horses that have efficiencies of their own, and the Barden design comes as close as any cart I have seen, or used, to compounding those into one device.

Efficiency is a strange duck, as some of us may consider one area to be more important than another. For example, you are comfortable walking, but it doesn’t make it as safe as riding on a cart that you can step on and off of quickly and easily. In your operation that is not as critical, but the Barden design provides an effective solution for those who do see it as important.

Also, efficiencies with draft animals are not huge, so on one hand some may be excused, on the other hand working to combine as many as possible will have increased import. Likewise, when one efficiency is held out in higher regard than others, it tends to require more emphasis than those others in order to maximize it. The example of hitch height is an example in which that becomes paramount, many times at the expense of others, and the focus of the logging becomes hooking and dragging (again overstated and simplified).

I know your work as well, if not better, than just about anyone, and it is clear that the Plowden design fits your work well. You are extremely competent in many of the aspects of logging with horses, and there is no doubt that the arch you use plays a huge role in how you take on the work you do.

I am not suggesting that you, or anyone else, need to change devices. I am merely broadening the discussion, and bolstering the components that have gone into the development of the Barden design.

Carl