Log Arch – Includes Discussion of Different Designs and Uses

[Mark Cowdrey]

If I am tooting my own horn in a way that bothers anyone I apologize. Thanks for your comments Jason.

I started skidding logs W a Pioneer forecart, dragging them on the ground behind, and I knew there had to be a better way. I went to a Forest Mfg Arch, which was well built & effective but had the mount/dismount & high center of gravity issues already mentioned by Carl & others. I saw Les’ cart with its ease of entry, tool storage, evener on a horizontal line w/ choker hitch points, no moving parts & effective log hitching arrangement, and knew he was onto something. (And yes you can cradle hitch a log on it.)

The Piggyback FireWood Arch I came up with mounts directly to a Pioneer forecart, with pole or shaves. In deep snow, the forecart can be fitted with skis so you can still back up to a log. The Arch can be made to work on any flat deck forecart. It addresses all of the pertinent issues mentioned above. The tool storage is more limited than the Barden cart. My idea was that if you already have a fore cart, buying the Barden cart was somewhat redundant. If you don’t already have a forecart, go with the Barden cart & you have an excellent multi-purpose tool.

As always, I am happy to hear anyone’s comments or critiques.

Respectfully,

Mark

[Robert MoonShadow]

So the Barden arch makes for an effective forecart?

[Carl Russell]

I in no way intended to diminish the potential of any of the other arches, and in particular I really admire the work and design that Mark has created, especially as it utilizes a cart that has been designed for other purposes, but I hope that my explanations above can be seen as presenting what I see as advantages of the Barden design.

Yes, Les has a feature on his cart to insert a draw bar into a receiver so that it can be used to draw some farm implements. I have used it for raking, tedding, harrowing, moving my wood-splitter, and dragging pastures. The draw bar is a little low though, so I use the big cart for my wood wagon and manure spreader.

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

p.s. Mark, some attractive features of your personality are that you’re easy going, humble, thoughtful, patient, and honest, but the truth is you have a horn to blow, so blow it man…it’s time, and you’ve earned it.

[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.

[Carl Russell]

The point about log size is accurate, not so much that I don’t move very big logs, but that I don’t move the biggest logs with an arch-cart. My points about the value of a cart as a conveyance while working in the woods, have to do with safety, convenience, and functionality.

To make a cart to accommodate logs larger than 18″-24″(I take the large ones by the top, smaller diameter), I think one loses draft efficiency, safety, convenience, and therefore functionality.

The relative draft efficiency of a sled is much superior, by putting the draft point low to the ground, and lifting a substantial amount, or all, of the weight of the log off of the ground.

With a sled the weight is held high, friction reduced, and hitch is low (higher draft efficiency). With a high hitch cart the log is held high, but so is the draft point, and when the other functionality issues are added, it just doesn’t pan out for me as a solution that is worth the expense, as the Barden cart is entirely comparable in cost.

I have about $750 (including the several times I have rebuilt them) into both of my sleds, and I have nearly 20 years of work out of them.

As far as the percentage of large logs versus smaller, the forestry that I am practicing rarely creates an overstory removal. More often I am thinning from below, and dipping some into the largest diameters, especially since as trees get larger, fewer are grown per acre anyway. When I get into a job such as a stand of large pine (800-1500 bf/tree) I just use the sled exclusively.

My understanding of Tayooks objective is that she wants to produce fuelwood, and in that case, as I have said repeatedly (sorry for sounding like a broken record), I see the Barden style cart as a superb solution.

Carl

[simon lenihan]

I have no experience with any of the carts mentioned but i do have experience with a bunk sledge on wheels manufactured by tegmyr svets of sweden. Like carl has mentioned friction is greatly reduced, the line of draft is spot on and the log can be 4 to 5 feet in front of the crossbeam, this puts most of the weight on the wheels. We have moved large logs with this piece of kit in the past with a single horse.
simon lenihan

[Michel Boulay]

Hi everybody,
one project that I had was building a logging arch. This thread which brought good discussions from everyone, really helped me in getting a good idea of what is most practical for me. Pictures give you a good idea but not everything. Carl would it be possible to PM Les Barden’s contact info as well? Looking at some of your pictures, you use it for pretty much everything.

I really like the way you discribed what you did in the woods, having the versatility of using the arch in certain situations and then the scoot or sled.
I really don’t have big size trees like you have and forest around here is pretty thick. Like you said big size trees you hook them by the top.

It always comes down to what your personal preference and situation is and having this thread to help you decide is great.

Pictures that you all show are in a forest that has lots of space between trees and well maintain, so maneuverability is good the situation must be different in thick forest. What is used in that situation?

Mike

[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.

[Carl Russell]

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

Traveling Woodsman;8626 wrote:

…. 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. …..

Whether or not we get hurt is not a measure of the safety of a particular design. While I agree with your personal attachment to the specific design, having to climb up and down, and perching that high off the ground is not in its nature a safe design. Plenty of people get a lot of work done with them, and they are well built, but there is a design that delivers a much safer set-up.

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.

This is a very telling statement, and we have all agreed on the different personal preferences. I encounter exactly the same circumstances that you do, and I also molded the way I think based on the equipment I have found to work.
….

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.

This is one of the common misunderstandings about the physics of draft. Even though your hitch point is lower than the draw bar, your horses are still lifting from the highest point. The pull goes down from the shoulders, and then back up to the draw bar, then down to the log. When they pull the energy straightens out that line. Although some people seem to think that it is sometimes thought that the two points should be on the same level, the reality is that the draft SHOULD be a straight line to the point where the weight is born, and if that is 2′ off the ground the horse’s energy is not being used efficiently.

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.

I realize that you have a lot of experience, but the truth is that there is no place in any woodlot that I have ever been in that could not be accessed with a sled. I use them in all conditions, and in many different forest types. The fact still remains that if you have really big timber the best way to move it is on a sled. It may take a little ingenuity and elbow grease, but the sled provides the best advantage to the draft animal.
….

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 whole heartedly agree. I just come from a school of animal powered logging that is based on adherence to methods and theory that have passed the tests of time. We are swimming in a culture that thinks they have reinvented animal power, and in the excitement many of the basic fundamentals of working animals have been overlooked.

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.

We have all agreed that we cannot hope to limit the threads to narrow interpretations of the original post, so don’t apologize for creating a good discussion. ….

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

[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.

[Gabe Ayers]

I suppose I could add some thoughts to this thread. The Fisher style log arch is a very simple device. It has no moving parts and provides front end suspension of all size logs including logs higher than the hitch bar and wider than the wheels it that is necessary. It doesn’t happen often because we simply don’t have that many big logs, usually, but it can do those size pieces of wood too.

The hitch point or where the double tree is attached is lower than the slot bar by a few inches. I think the point is that the frame is arranged so that the slot bar is in the front of the centerline of the axles and thereby put a certain amount of upward pressure on the tongue when loaded. I have thought of it as a rolling wedge or lever and as long as the animals keep the power applied to the hitch point and the load moving forward, front end suspension of the log will occur. The cantilever of the load being carried in front of the centerline wants the arch tongue to rise (around 250 bd.ft. hardwood) and if not enough power is applied it will rise. But the point of draft from the horses shoulders is still higher than the slot bar on average size draft horses (1600 lbs., 15/2 + HH). So they are lifting somewhat but at the same time are pulling the rolling lever against the resistance of the load or log and providing front end suspension of the log. I have never seen Les’s arch and the relationship between the slot bar and centerline of the axles, but suspect it does the same thing where the lift of the draft keeps the tongue from rising? I know that device works just as surely as Carl Russel knows someone with a self loader that will come to his landing to haul his logs.

There is a certain increase in tongue weight on this log arch, particularly when empty (which is half the time) so we have switched to the D-ring to deal with that weight without wearing on the animals to much. There is definitely an issue of the operator having to climb off and on this device multiple times daily (upwards of 50 times daily), which is an effort born by the operator. There is the occasional turn over that makes being that high off the ground a longer distance to be back on the ground. This turnover can be limited with experience and observation of certain rules, like don’t get on the arch until the log is precisely hitched and certainly never when using a long chain to extract a piece from somewhere one doesn’t want to put the arch (in a brush pile, laps, debris, ditch, gully, etc)

Riding this log arch becomes a skill that requires excellent balance and a certain level of control on the animals to keep the pace controlled and safe.
(Line pressure/bit contact Jen)

My primary concern and hope is that more people work in the woods with animal power and that the work leads to a better understanding of the ecological entity that the entire forest is and uses a sensitive method of extraction to protect, preserve and enhance the forested ecosystem through
a natural form of common sense, soft science and silviculture.

I really don’t think most folks understand the cantilever aspect of the Fisher style arch. It is different than the Forest Manufacturing Arch, through simplicity and rugged design that includes no moving parts (other than the wheels rolling). The other taller arches usually have the cantilever in the leg attachment point and also put the load forward. The taller arches turn over easier and are harder to get on and off. The quick release slot bar wears out faster than the stationary type. A more recent design of the Forest Manufacturing Arch offered by Farmer Brown has adjustable legs that allow the height to be lowered to accommodate different sized horses and makes getting on and off a little easier. One may be bought without the quick release slot bar if desired. That adjustment can be made with different sized tires on the Fisher arch or just built custom for your animal height from the beginning.

I prefer to ride the arch and not walk beside it. It is only slightly less dangerous that ground skidding. Ground skidding definitely still has a place in animal powered extraction, but not a choice I make if avoidable. Although in reality all our horses are started working in the woods by ground skidding, just to let the work in the woods against resistance and have objects moving along with them in that setting. But as soon as we get the used to that experience we put them on the arch….my old legs are better at balancing during the ride than walking through the forest with the horse.

Another note on the log arch as an entertainment for the children by riding while skidding. I don’t recommend this at all. This (any arch) is a hard device to ride for an experienced operator and not a place for the kids to ride except maybe coming and going to the harvesting site, but not in the woods itself. Just the slightest mistake can put a tire over a high obstacle, run up a sapling or into a hole and throw anyone off, particularly a child. I threw my kid off in a rock pile once when he was very young and he never rode it again until he was big enough to drive the horses himself. Be careful taking the children into the woods with you. Carl has the right idea, give them a chance to observe from a safe distance, not be in a dangerous situation.
Let them pick up debris out of the skid trail and prepare a turn around for the next twitch or skid or leave a choker chain with them to prepare the next log for skidding.

This is work, not play.

What a great discussion, particularly given the reality of the many years I have spent working in the woods alone and didn’t have anyone to talk about this stuff with….

Farmer Brown has suggested having a log arch rodeo to test all the arches against one another in various settings….let’s do it sometime….. The biggest challenge to that idea is where in the world would we find a judge that knows enough about and doesn’t have an specific arch in the contest???

How about a discussion next, on the use of cable and pulleys to get big wood out of hard places?

[Gabe Ayers]

I suppose I could add some thoughts to this thread. The Fisher style log arch is a very simple device. It has no moving parts and provides front end suspension of all size logs including logs higher than the hitch bar and wider than the wheels it that is necessary. It doesn’t happen often because we simply don’t have that many big logs, usually, but it can do those size pieces of wood too.

The hitch point or where the double tree is attached is lower than the slot bar by a few inches. I think the point is that the frame is arranged so that the slot bar is in the front of the centerline of the axles and thereby put a certain amount of upward pressure on the tongue when loaded. I have thought of it as a rolling wedge or lever and as long as the animals keep the power applied to the hitch point and the load moving forward, front end suspension of the log will occur. The cantilever of the load being carried in front of the centerline wants the arch tongue to rise (around 250 bd.ft. hardwood) and if not enough power is applied it will rise. But the point of draft from the horses shoulders is still higher than the slot bar on average size draft horses (1600 lbs., 15/2 + HH). So they are lifting somewhat but at the same time are pulling the rolling lever against the resistance of the load or log and providing front end suspension of the log. I have never seen Les’s arch and the relationship between the slot bar and centerline of the axles, but suspect it does the same thing where the lift of the draft keeps the tongue from rising? I know that device works just as surely as Carl Russel knows someone with a self loader that will come to his landing to haul his logs.

There is a certain increase in tongue weight on this log arch, particularly when empty (which is half the time) so we have switched to the D-ring to deal with that weight without wearing on the animals to much. There is definitely an issue of the operator having to climb off and on this device multiple times daily (upwards of 50 times daily), which is an effort born by the operator. There is the occasional turn over that makes being that high off the ground a longer distance to be back on the ground. This turnover can be limited with experience and observation of certain rules, like don’t get on the arch until the log is precisely hitched and certainly never when using a long chain to extract a piece from somewhere one doesn’t want to put the arch (in a brush pile, laps, debris, ditch, gully, etc)

Riding this log arch becomes a skill that requires excellent balance and a certain level of control on the animals to keep the pace controlled and safe.
(Line pressure/bit contact Jen)

My primary concern and hope is that more people work in the woods with animal power and that the work leads to a better understanding of the ecological entity that the entire forest is and uses a sensitive method of extraction to protect, preserve and enhance the forested ecosystem through
a natural form of common sense, soft science and silviculture.

I really don’t think most folks understand the cantilever aspect of the Fisher style arch. It is different than the Forest Manufacturing Arch, through simplicity and rugged design that includes no moving parts (other than the wheels rolling). The other taller arches usually have the cantilever in the leg attachment point and also put the load forward. The taller arches turn over easier and are harder to get on and off. The quick release slot bar wears out faster than the stationary type. A more recent design of the Forest Manufacturing Arch offered by Farmer Brown has adjustable legs that allow the height to be lowered to accommodate different sized horses and makes getting on and off a little easier. One may be bought without the quick release slot bar if desired. That adjustment can be made with different sized tires on the Fisher arch or just built custom for your animal height from the beginning.

I prefer to ride the arch and not walk beside it. It is only slightly less dangerous that ground skidding. Ground skidding definitely still has a place in animal powered extraction, but not a choice I make if avoidable. Although in reality all our horses are started working in the woods by ground skidding, just to let the work in the woods against resistance and have objects moving along with them in that setting. But as soon as we get the used to that experience we put them on the arch….my old legs are better at balancing during the ride than walking through the forest with the horse.

Another note on the log arch as an entertainment for the children by riding while skidding. I don’t recommend this at all. This (any arch) is a hard device to ride for an experienced operator and not a place for the kids to ride except maybe coming and going to the harvesting site, but not in the woods itself. Just the slightest mistake can put a tire over a high obstacle, run up a sapling or into a hole and throw anyone off, particularly a child. I threw my kid off in a rock pile once when he was very young and he never rode it again until he was big enough to drive the horses himself. Be careful taking the children into the woods with you. Carl has the right idea, give them a chance to observe from a safe distance, not be in a dangerous situation.
Let them pick up debris out of the skid trail and prepare a turn around for the next twitch or skid or leave a choker chain with them to prepare the next log for skidding.

This is work, not play.

What a great discussion, particularly given the reality of the many years I have spent working in the woods alone and didn’t have anyone to talk about this stuff with….

Farmer Brown has suggested having a log arch rodeo to test all the arches against one another in various settings….let’s do it sometime….. The biggest challenge to that idea is where in the world would we find a judge that knows enough about and doesn’t have an specific arch in the contest???

[Jim Ostergard]

Well, just to add to this great discussion. I have used the high platform arch and personally find it difficult to climb up on time and time again. Sort of like climbing up into the 540. I also thought the hitch point was way high for my horse. However, I have gotten really used to my walking beam. Its not that high off the ground but the walking beam allows it to climb most anything, even a 15″ boulder. From the discussion it would seem that when the slider is up with the butt off the ground they I have a real difference in the distance from that point to where the singletree is hooked up. Not sure from the discussion what that does in terms of efficiency. I do have an additional chain on a grab hook that leads from right behind the singletree hook-up and can grab the choker right at the log. My feeling is that this directs the pull better from the horse to the log. I would love to figure out how to hinge the back wheels for the yard bound twitch but for now Rusty (when we both are in tune) will back and fill that 4 wheeled arch four or five times to get into a tight spot. As others have said when we have a piece of gear we tend to make it work.

[Carl Russell]

Traveling Woodsman;8639 wrote:

…..
The “safety” I refer to is more about functional design and less about learned habits. I too understand that safety is a matter of the degree of risk I am willing to take, but in the context of giving advice to someone new to the experience/equipment, my comments are meant to be broad.

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. ….

I understand that, my comments about the inclusion of the sled as a regular component to my logging enterprise are specifically directed at what I see as common misinterpretations about the limitations of harvesting timber with animals, which are often based on a dependency on one type, or a narrow set of choices, of harvesting/equipment system.

… 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. You are not alone. I learned these methods from an older man who was much smaller than me, and there is a lot more brain than back that goes into effect use of sleds.

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′). I definitely agree that to go light and go often is the best approach, and yes I would typically not use a sled on a 300′ skid, unless the log was bigger than I could pull easily with the cart.

If the log is to big for a team, I just hook another team (or single) out front and go, … I don’t have this option as I work alone, and it takes me a lot less time to roll a log onto a sled than to say, bring my oxen into the woods with the horses.

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? The longer skid are definitely where the sled becomes more viable than the cart. I have skidded regularly up to a 1/2 mile down hill on snow, mostly because I save those kind of skids for snow, but on dry ground the increased power efficiency is the same, and the use of the sled not only allows the movement of large logs, but does open up woodlots with longer skid lengths.

I am interested in how you integrate sleds and scoots into the big picture of a harvest. I open main skid trails where I can park the sled near a natural incline or hummock, where rolling the logs becomes easier, and then I ground skid from the stump to the sled. There is some disturbance from ground skidding, but I rarely skid repeatedly over the same ground, and I move the sled so that I skid distances less than 100′. I will use the scoot for uphill skidding, and for dry ground work, and the bobsled for downhill and on snow. The scoot is easier and faster to load, but typically I can load much more onto a bobsled. In some instances I will bring the sled to really big logs and roll them on where they fell.

I guess you hand load smaller logs and cross load larger logs? Any way that gets the log on. If the setting is right I prefer to roll them by hand because it takes less time. I only cross load logs that I can’t roll by hand, but I always take the peavey to them first. I have rolled some massive sticks by hand.

Also, you don’t have any trouble getting sleds over rocky ground? By rocky I mean rocks over maybe 15″ on the smallest dimension. …These kinds of obstacles are very hard to describe accurately, but all I can say is that if there is an obstacle in the way of performing an important silvicultural prescription, then I find a way around, or over it. When using the sleds I am typically ground skidding to it, so these types of obstacles can be reduced or eliminated. I will sometimes bring in machinery to build roads, and or landings, especially as these types of improvements are important to the long-term management. Also I have built/improved truck roads and landings to facilitate downhill skids.

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. …

My comments are not pointed against new ideas, but rather at the practice of not taking seriously the power advantage that animals have, which is not pushing, but lifting. Moving farm equipment and transport wagons require much less lift, because the weight is born entirely on wheels, but when moving dead weight like logs the push power has limitations. Logging equipment that is designed like farm equipment is a result of the culture that has kept the working animal alive, but takes for granted the basic physics of the draft.

And another issue, the draft efficiency that you talk about. …. 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. It is the efficiency of the animal to turn their energy into power to move a load, not the efficiency of the operation that I am referring to. Your ability to produce more is a viable consideration, but it is based more on the ease with which you can perform your expected tasks, not the return on draft efficiency.

So how much efficiency are you referring to when you talk about one arch being more efficient than the other? …The most efficient draft line for horses is 90 degrees off the shoulder, which puts the draft point just above the hind feet. As they straighten out the angle from foot through hip to shoulder they lift their weight up off the ground in the front. When they are connected to a weight behind them by a straight line from shoulder to hind foot, the weight is lifted off the ground. When the draft point is raised to above the hock, or higher, the animal is resisting full power to keep their front end down. This may not be a big amount of power inefficiency, but my point is that I see my effort in the woods as finding ways to give the horses the best advantage against the load. Because I know how to use sleds, they are an easy solution for me. By giving the animals reasonable working loads, facilitated by maximizing the draft angle, I find that I can get the best use out of them over the long haul. In some ways this is just personal preference, but to me these details make the craft even more subtle and enhance the working relationship for me.

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. …
What you are talking about is what I was referring to in another post. There is an acceptance of certain inefficiencies because of cultural habit. I know what you are getting at, and yes, I can see that if you stick with what works you can get the work done. What I am presenting is the theory and philosophy that I was taught about how to use horses and oxen. Although I ‘m sure it isn’t the kind of inefficiency that will break the bank, it is the most basic fundamental physical law that makes using draft animals practical, and I believe, and have found, that by adhering to it, by using the appropriate equipment when needed, that animal power is made more effective, and therefore more practical.
… But you were talking about this style of arch having less draft efficiency, which is specifically what I’m wondering about.

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.

As far as blue prints for the Barden Cart, I was mistaken, although Les has passed on the design to several people(which is why I thought there were drawings) they have all been working off from pictures and his materials list. We will be putting together some detailed plans as part of some other initiatives concerning Les’ contribution to the working horse community.

Thanks, Carl

[Donn Hewes]

Great thread, Jason, I don’t know when you will all get to together for a cart pull off; but you need to look for a farmer for a judge. I volunteer! I have skidded a lot of logs on the ground and I know there is an easier way than that. Donn

[Author]

Posts