[Traveling Woodsman]

Thanks for the input and ideas.

[Traveling Woodsman]

@Carl Russell 8654 wrote:

So if I haven’t made it clear by now, I will just reiterate that as the hitch point gets higher, the horses are pushing, not lifting, and although they have muscles that allow them to do that, the high hitch is not the best way to take advantage of the power they have available. Where that comes into play for me is when discussing these plans, I think there has to be a point where the design must take into consideration that most basic animal power conversion efficiency. So what I was saying is that although the high hitch carts are performing as you, and others expect, they are in fact going beyond the point where the animal is most efficiently utilized, and rather than looking to an arch like that to solve the problem of moving heavy logs, I suggest using a sled, and use a lighter cart/arch for the short skids of smaller stems, where that mobility can be a key factor.

Well, I don’t have a lot more to say, but I will throw out a few things.

Jason brought up some good points that I forgot to mention, such as the fact that the height of your horse(s) affect how high your arch should be. And the cantilever of the drawbar is an important factor, especially when hooked to heavier loads.

It seems, Carl, that the main point you’re getting at as far as efficiency is that horses really lift instead of pull. I guess where I’m at now is wondering how big a factor it should be as far as choice of arch design for professional use. I may pursue some field testing in this area, we’ll see.

I also agree with Jason that using an arch is a skill, and should be thought of that way.

As far as larger hitches, in my experience, using more than 2 horses does not necessarily require more people. Besides using a team and a single, I have used 3, 4 and 5 horses in the woods by myself in different situations using an arch and ground skidding. It does require more and maybe different skills, and there are situations that it’s nice to have another person with you, but it is not inherent. I guess the way I worded it in my last post made it sound like I always had another person running the extra horse(s), which is sometimes the case, but not always.

And to describing terrain, I totally agree with you that it is very hard to describe terrain. The only really good way to see what someone is talking about is to actually see the ground. Pictures are better than a description, but still fall short.

Also, it is my impression that sleds and scoots tend to be regional in distribution. I frequently ran into them in Minnesota and the upper Midwest, and I hear about them all the time in New England. But in the Appalachian Mountains of Virginia, they seem to be significantly less widespread. I know a number of old timers who worked in the woods, and I have rarely, if ever, heard of any of them referring to sleds or scoots. I’m not entirely sure why this is.

Otherwise, lots of good points Carl. I think there may be a few places where we were addressing different situations, and maybe I just thought we were addressing the same situation. We may actually agree on some of these things. As I saw on another post here somewhere, this forum is a somewhat limited means of having a discussion, not being able to use facial and physical gestures and limited to delayed feedback. I do think the forum is a good thing though, because it opens up discussions that couldn’t otherwise happen.

Thanks Simon for your ideas. Is there any good source(s) for material from Sweden on horse logging? I’m aware of a few, just curious if maybe you know more.

I hope anyone else with thoughts will contribute.

[Traveling Woodsman]

@Carl Russell 8636 wrote:

Not to drag this on too far, I just have a few follow-up comments.

I came to logging with a cart/arch after having spent the first couple of years almost exclusively ground skidding, and twitching to a sled. There are significant advantages to using a cart/arch, but draft efficiency is not one of them. One of the common features of our modern culture is our ability to accept inefficiencies as par for the course. This is in part because of the abundance of power delivered by the machines that run our societal infrastructure, but it is also a result of influence of a culture where individuals are rarely personally involved in the creation and use of their own energy. One of the most basic elements to working with living power is draft efficiency, because in the long run every calorie saved or burned adds up. This is just food for thought.

Carl

Carl, thanks for your thoughts.

Yes, whether or not we get hurt is not the only measure of the safety of a given design, but I have to conclude that it is at least somewhat of a factor. I guess my point is if in the process of harvesting millions of board feet, nobody gets hurt, then how big of an issue is safety in a discussion of these two arch styles? I have in mind professional harvesting, and I would say that the weekend firewood harvester will face a different set of considerations, and this point should be considered differently by them.

My point was that everybody’s thought style about the way they attack a job
is based on the type of methods and equipment they have. There are lots of different equipment systems and corresponding thought attacks that all result in good forests and a living for practitioners.

I guess I will drag this out further, and ask for clarification on several things that you’ve talked about that I’m not clear on.

To preface the first question, I must say that I have limited experience with sleds and scoots. But from the time I’ve spent with them, my impression has been that by the time you fiddle around with loading a log, you could already have been to the landing and back. The more logs you load, the more skids you could make. I realize this would diminish the longer the skid distance, which is why I am mainly referring to shorter distances (maybe under 300′). If the log is to big for a team, I just hook another team (or single) out front and go, and the other team/single can go back to their part of the woods when done. Longer skids (over a 1/4 mile) are not viable in my experience. Maybe you don’t use sleds on short skids? Maybe in your view longer skids become viable with sleds? I am interested in how you integrate sleds and scoots into the big picture of a harvest. I guess you hand load smaller logs and cross load larger logs? Also, you don’t have any trouble getting sleds over rocky ground? By rocky I mean rocks over maybe 15″ on the smallest dimension. I realize this is a very big question. Maybe you have an article or something on it.

While there is definitely validity to following time tested methods and techniques, we have to remember that at one time all these techniques were new and unproven. I have no reason to believe that there are not new, creative, and efficient ideas that have not been discovered yet. This is not saying that I think the arch is necessarily one of them, but that I personally do not want to throw out an idea just because it’s new. Field testing is how we see how these new ideas work, and refine them. So we have to balance using established principles and pursuing new ideas.

And another issue, the draft efficiency that you talk about. I’m wondering where you received your understanding on this, specifically have you performed field tests to demonstrate what you refer to. I guess what I am wondering is if maybe while what you’re saying is in theory true, is it practically a factor in a ground level situation. I can understand what you’re referring to as far as the horses lifting from the highest point on the arch, but I’m wondering about how big of a difference we’re talking about here. I am defining efficiency as the ratio of input to output. I have the same input whether I’m skidding on the ground or on the arch, but the output is greater with an arch. So how much efficiency are you referring to when you talk about one arch being more efficient than the other? You said that a horse has to be able to lift to use it’s power efficiently. I’m wondering what this looks like in a real situation. I mean, I understand lift is very important, which is why I’m wondering as long as the tugs aren’t like way above the horse’s back and the horses have a 90 degree draft angle on their collar, how is more lift on a log less efficient than less lift. And if so, how much of a difference are we talking about. There’s many considerations when deciding on a style of arch, and I’m interested to put this in perspective to other considerations of arch design. In other words, if it is a big difference, then treat it a such, but if not, then maybe other considerations outweigh it. It is not my intention to be belligerent, and I hope I don’t come across that way, but I don’t generally like to just take someone’s word for it. I want to be able to understand things for myself.

That kind of felt disconnected, hope you can see what I’m saying. Also, I realize that I am just talking about arch comparisons. To be complete, this discussion on arches should be held in the bigger picture of an equipment system. But you were talking about this style of arch having less draft efficiency, which is specifically what I’m wondering about.

[Traveling Woodsman]

The Piggyback arch looks like a very good option for certain situations, such as low volume firewood production where simplicity and low budget are factors. We need options like that around.

Simon I’ve seen pictures of you with your little wagon, and I’m curious about it. What kind of situations do you use it for? Maybe long distances and big logs? Do you cross load to get the log on? How often do you end up using it? How much time do you spend preparing a road/trail for it? Lots of questions, sorry. And maybe I should just start another thread.

As far as safety and convenience on a Forest Mfg. style arch, maybe I’ll just throw my two cents into the discussion. I’ve skidded hundreds of thousands of bd. ft. on just about any kind of ground you can get an arch on, and have never gotten hurt. I have had the arch tip over several times, which will happen if you use one long enough, but I’ve never had a problem making a safe exit.

It would take a while for me to get used to an arch with a much lower ground clearance (if I ever could). I routinely find it useful to go over logs both perpendicular and parallel to their length, such as tight landings and woods with lots of deadfall. Other places where I use the ground clearance include rocky woods, stumps, roots, and abrupt topographical features(ditches, banks etc.). Part of my selling point is that I can get into hard to access areas, and ground clearance is an important part of that. I suppose I’ve never known any other way (as far as arches) and have molded the way I think about skidding to the capabilities of the setup.

I have a place to carry peavey, saws, many chains, many sets of grabs, skip hammer, wedge hammer, tongs, and a watertight ammo box for screnches, wrenches, lunch, files, tapes and whatever else you might need.

As far as the height goes, the particular arch I have has a horse hook point that is about 4 inches lower than the drawbar. This keeps a relatively high drawbar while still allowing the horses a good advantage. I realize that it is sometimes thought that the two hitch points should be on the same level plane, and I don’t have much experience with an arch like that, but I do know I have no trouble getting out plenty of logs in a day. The extra lift is important for me because I run into a significant amount of large timber. While there are some situations where a sled, scoot or log buggy would be advantageous, there are many places where those pieces can’t access, and the arch may be the only option. Situations like thick or rocky woods, no snow, small trails, etc. Also, I personally like sitting up high because it gives you a better view of what’s in front of you.

I do agree with Carl that we should not rely on one method or piece of equipment for animal powered logging. I’m sure these have been discussed before, but methods like bunching and forwarding, trailer type arches with total or almost total log suspension, good old ground skidding and sleds are all things that I have utilized at different times. I just wanted to throw in my thoughts on arches in case anybody would find them useful.

I guess the what it boils down to is this: If you’re happy with it and being safely productive within your goals, then go for it.

I always find different methods intriguing, and I hope anybody with other thoughts will throw them out.

Carl, I think that you were trying to more directly address the subject of the thread, and I was wanting to have more of a general discussion on arches, and I apologize for that. Not to offer an excuse, but this this is my first discussion forum and I am still learning how to operate. And I do find your thoughts very informative.

[Traveling Woodsman]

@Carl Russell 8564 wrote:

As far as a cradle hitch, it can be done. I have moved a lot of wood with this cart and can count on one hand how many times I have had to use it though. I think it may have to do with the fact that the draft point is only 18″ off the ground, and the horses still have a pretty good lifting ability. I have really found that when moving logs with animals, it is important to keep in mind the physics involved in utilizing the power of the animal, not just the technological solution that equipment can seem to offer.

I have to say, and I’m sorry to be too distracted from the point of this post, but as we all know these animal powered endeavors are rarely answered by one solution, so I do not tend to look to one piece of equipment to solve all my logging challenges.

When I am working really big timber, I tend to use a sled. Either a bobsled, if the skid in downhill, or on snow, or a scoot. Both work really well for eliminating or diminishing the friction factor. I go the the philosophy that harvesting timber with animals is not about skidding logs with horses or oxen, but about working horses and oxen in the woods (what ever methods, tools, equipment, or skills that fit the particular challenges in that woodlot).

Carl

You must not be pulling very large logs then, because when the top of the log is higher than your arch hitch point, you are actually pulling the log into the ground (if you’re using a conventional choker type top hitch). It doesn’t matter what your angle of draft (lift) may be. But this may be the point, because if you don’t have a need to move large diameter logs very often, then that cart may be the best choice for your situation. And you may also have other efficient methods, like you mentioned.

I guess I have to ultimately submit ideas to the test of real world, ground level work. Ideas and theories only help me if they actually positively affect the work I’m doing, otherwise they’re of no use to me. If they don’t, I have to at least change the way view them. This is why I was wondering if there was a noticeable difference in efficiency between the two arches that were being discussed, Carl. I haven’t used a Barden arch so I can’t make a statement. But if you did notice a difference, I would be very interested. Even if you didn’t notice a difference, that wouldn’t invalidate your personal decision, but I would be interested to know.

Good point on equipment. Having as many tricks up your sleeve as possible is an important part of being able to make a living in the real world with draft animals. It’s about using ingenuity, thought and a smorgasbord of options to get the work done, as opposed to just overrunning any problem with large amounts of energy

Once again, I hope this isn’t too far off of topic.

[Traveling Woodsman]

So were you having efficiency problems when using a Fisher style arch?

After reading further, it sounds like maybe your choice of arch is more based on ease of getting on and off and convenience (tool boxes)? This is very valid, and has something to be said for it. Carrying equipment and safety are important features of any arch.

On the Barden cart, is there any way to cradle hitch a log that has a larger diameter than the height of the hitch point?

I wonder if you would be willing to PM me Les Barden’s contact info as well? There are several things I can’t make out from the pictures, and I would be interested in more information. Several of the factors intrigue me, and I always like to research new ideas and see how I might apply them advantageously.

But like you said, everyone has their own preferences and you just have to decide for yourself what factors are most important to your situation.

[Traveling Woodsman]

@Carl Russell 8477 wrote:

The results of these designs, while increasing the lift on the log, actually place the draft so high that they compromise the draft of the horse, put the driver in a potentially unsafe location (hard to get off), and teamsters often end up driving the hitch while walking beside the arch, which is dangerous also.
.

Carl, this maybe should be in another thread, but I was curious about your observations on the Barden arch. What exactly do you mean by compromising the draft? Maybe you’re referring to the angle of draft? And do you consider walking beside the arch different to walking beside a log on the ground (as far as safety goes), and if so, why? Have you ever had problems navigating over rough ground, such as rock, roots, or small logs, with the Barden arch? It looks somewhat low to the ground from the pictures. Also wondering if you’ve had much time on, say, a Fisher style, Forest Mfg., or Farmer Brown arch. I have my own thoughts, but I was curious about your perspective, since I haven’t had the opportunity to see or use a Barden style cart. I am always looking for new ways of doing things in the woods, and would be interested in what you or anyone else has to say.

[Author]

Posts