Log Arch – Includes Discussion of Different Designs and Uses

[simon lenihan]

Traveling woodsman, it has been 12 years since i worked the tegmyr svets sledge, i ended up selling it along with a set of harness to replace a horse we lost at that time. This piece of euipment came in to its own not only in big logs but in smaller pulp like material where 1 to 1.1/2 tonnes could be loaded by hand quickly and extracted to the landing. This piece of kit is designed for a single horse and is used mostly in conifer stands where space is limited especially in virgin stands where trees were planted 1.5 meters apart, the sledge is 1.2 meters wide with the crossbunk 12″ off the ground at either end of the crossbunk there is a place to mount a hand winch. Drive up alongside a log with handwinch at opposite side take cable over top of log and then underneath and back up on to crossbunk, 3 or 4 cranks and your log is rolled on top of crossbunk. Another method is prior to felling large tree place short billet 3 to 4 feet in front, fell on top of billet, cut to length and then back sledge underneath. We do not come accross big logs very often, the vast majority of logs we do are in the 500 to 1000lb range, when we do get good size logs to go at we borrow an 8 wheel swedish ep wagon and crosshaul on using a metal h frame to slide the logs on to the bed. we still find it faster to skid from stump to landing in one go where extraction distance is reasonable if too far to landing we skid to where horse drawn forwarder takes over. Sweden seems to lead the way in development of equipment for horselogging, however most of this equipment was designed 15 to 20 years ago and hardly any new piece of equipment has come on the market since. I still think we can come up with more modern equipment for horselogging you just have to look at the ATV market to see the advances they have made in a short while.
simon lenihan

[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.

[Gabe Ayers]

I just wanted to add that the Fisher style logging arch is lower or shorter than the Forest Manufacturing type arch. This lower height definitely makes a difference in the amount of effort required to get on and off the thing 50 times a day. It is no higher or taller than the walking beam that Jim uses.

Of course I think I had mentioned earlier that the higher style arches with the guard in the front do come with adjustable legs. Charlie Fisher invented this thing after about thirty years of experimentation. It works. The ones we are currently using are about twenty years old and have had the slot bar replaced at least once each, mostly because the slots wear out, and the bus seats get torn up with turnovers and time outside, but the basic frame is the same as the original one copied from the one I bought from Charlie when I apprenticed with him.

Donn, you are on with the log arch rodeo judge volunteering job…..
I am not sure how much that says about your sanity…but you got the job…
because when you get about a dozen serious horseloggers together at one place it may even go beyond “Rodeo”…. it can become a logathon or log derby, skidaganza, who knows, maybe we can make up a new name for such and event….

We will try to put something together for one of our exclusive logging events, like our annual Biological Woodsmen’s Week gathering.

This is all an interesting thread for me personally, because historically I have been employed to announce the logging portion of the Horse Progress Days event in Ohio and Pa. I have to admit there were several devices displayed that I wouldn’t have hauled home if I had been driving an empty truck. They may have practical application in some settings, but certainly not in others.

Another point is that it has to be affordable, meaning cheap – in most cases and as this thread started out, able to be fabricated locally, often with recycled materials. That is what many of the BWM use…again by necessity not choice.

[Carl Russell]

Well I don’t have too much more to add either. I will try to tie it all back together though as I was just following strings that were thrown out in discussion.

I realize the effectiveness of the Fisher style arch, as I have one as well. I have pulled hundreds of thousands of feet with it.

I also realize that there are regional differences in cultural exposure to certain equipment, like sleds.

My intent is only to promote an understanding of the working horse, and how that applies to equipment design and methodology, not to argue with people’s understanding based on their exposure.

Making allowances for difficult mounting, or needing more animals in the woods and the skills to employ them, or regularly taking risk, or differences in regional animal power culture , are points that may be personally important, but are not necessarily valid in a discussion comparing the applicability of equipment.

My intent was to highlight the advanced design of the Barden style cart, and to illuminate the rational behind not needing a heavier and higher log arch as a solution to big timber where using sleds to address that are more in line with the efficient use of animal power.

I like the idea of the woodland equipment demonstrations, and that is a big part of what we are doing at NEAPFD. It is just that we are not limiting ourselves to the use of arches, nor are we turning it into a competition.

When the rubber hits the road, it really comes down to what works for you. I tend to see this forum as an excellent way to have a theoretical discussion of factors that transcend all of our individual experiences. It is much different than face to face, and is really only good as food for thought.

Thanks, Carl

[Anonymous]

Well, I shouldn’t throw fuel back on this fire, but I’ll share a few specifics on experiences with the Forest Manufacturing arch that people are mentioning here and is posted in some pictures. I had written up a long response a while back to a question about my experiences with the FM arch, and somehow, it didn’t post.

Sounds like many of you guys find the FM arch to be too high for your liking, too hard to get up on, causing excess tongue weight and less than ideal draft. I might concede some of those points, and confess that I probably didn’t pay enough attention to those details, especially in regards to draft and tongue weight. If and when I hitch up to the arch again, I would look into the D-ring harness that is clearly shown in the RFD video piece with Jason and Jagger. I also might think about smaller tires, if I think the draft line is just too high.

For me, the height of the FM arch was NOT an issue to get on & off of, and it didn’t make me feel unsafe. In fact, I’d like to see some kind of barrier on the front of the Fisher arch like the Farmer Brown and FM arches have. Maybe it adds weight to the arch and that’s why its left off, but I appreciated the measure of safety and it allowed me to wedge alot of gear up on my arch for heading to and from the woods. I’m a relatively young guy, and pretty spry, so the on and off issue just didn’t bother me much. I would grab ahold of the peavy and swing myself up, or step up on a log, or on the tire. Just the same as rolling logs up on a sled (and anything we do in the woods), its a matter of body mechanics and leverage. I can see how it might not feel so good in 10 years and would concede its not ideal for everyone.

In my experience, the height of the FM arch was not a safety issue from the standpoint of tipping the arch. Its all in how you use it. Jason and Ben both referred to this, I think. If I was on hillsides or in other adverse conditions, I didn’t get on the cart until we got the log(s) to more manageable terrain. Using the arch for 2+ years, I think I might have tipped the cart 2-3 times, and never in situations where I would have even thought about being on it, and those occurences were early on in my use of the arch. Tipping it back over was not a big issue for me, but I can see it turning into a disaster with a green team.

My favorite part of the RFD video that ran last week was watching Jason’s team dig down, under control, and yank down a hung-up tree. Thats one of the advantages of an arch, I think. Before I had the arch, when I had to do that job (and, c’mon, everybody’s had to do it) I would use a chain on the butt of the tree, but I never felt comfortable hitching very short to a hung up tree, being worried about the tree running up on them. Problem is that you lose that all-important lift when you hitch at distance from the log, especially if the butt’s dug in the ground. With the arch, you can hook up short to the tree and not worry about it hitting the horses. Ideally, you don’t put yourself in that situation at all, but any of us thats done this very much knows that it happens, and the arch is very useful in that case.

Similarly, the arch is a great tool for pulling downhill in the winter and not worrying about logs running up on your horses heels. That can be an issue on steep grades with packed snow, but not with an arch.

I used a sled numerous times and agree with Carl that it can be invaluable in getting big timber out, or over longer skidding distances. I know there are alot of tricks to getting logs up on it, but sometimes it felt like a ton of work to get that sucker loaded by myself. An extra person, like you see in one of Carl’s pics, is nice to have. I think that some of the variance in regional use that Ben mentioned might be related to snowfall. Of course sleds can be like magic on snow, but they do work pretty well on some types of bare ground, as Carl mentioned.

And, yes, I rebuilt my sled from an old one that I bought, and it was a heckuva lot cheaper than the Forest Manufacturing Arch. I think the FM arch cost me around $1,100, in 2004. That probably sounds about as high as its hitch point to most folks. But I really needed to be busy in the woods, and the time it would have taken me to get materials and get someone to fabricate an arch to my own specs would have added up to at least half of the cost of the FM arch. The technical skills of fabricating were way beyond my abilities, and I didn’t want to worry about not getting it right. So it was worth it to me.

The FM arch also has a drawbar attachment, so that it can be used as a forecart. I used this very little, so I can’t speak much to its utility, but its a nice feature to have. Forest Manufacturing also makes an attachment winch thats basically a second axle that can pull behind the arch and lift an entire log off the ground, similar to an Amish implement I’ve seen posted on this site (can’t remember by whom). I couldn’t see that being worth the cost for my uses, but I’m sure it works pretty slick on moving big logs.

Overall, I was much happier working with my FM arch than when I was relying on ground-skidding for most of my work. I can see from this long thread that there might have been some issues with it that I didn’t fully address, but it was the implement that I had and my team became highly skilled as using it to increase our production and safety.

[Rod44]

Here is another way to haul two or three logs at once. Made by an amish friend. They use it mainly to haul from the staging area to the mill area.

[Ronnie Tucker]

it appears to me a common wagon could handle that job without so much effort to reinvent the wheel ronnie tucker tn logger

[Tayook]

Wow, this turned into quite a thread huh!!

We ran into a hiccup with selling the car. I’ve decided I hate eBay: ) But now that the dust is settled looks like we will end up having a buyer, so it is all working out.

After reading all these posts I have what maybe a testy question……..so here goes………

Being that we are just starting out in this and do not know the viability of this, should we start out by ground skidding? Like I’ve said before, I’ve only ever ground drove. The guys that is willing to help up out has only ever ground skidded logs, he’s driven all kinds of other things, but never hitched onto a cart to skid logs.

Let me know what you guys think, I’m sure you will have lots of feedback!

[Carl Russell]

Ground skidding is a good place to start for both you and the horse. It is by far the least expensive way to get started, and will help to illuminate for you the basics of using a horse in the woods.

That being said, you most likely quickly find limitations to functionality, operation efficiency, and safety, which will be better dealt with by using some sort of arch/cart, and/or sled, or wagon.

Keep in mind that ground skidding not only potentially causes more environmental impact, it also gets more dirt/gravel on your wood which can cause efficiency challenges at the processing end.

I started cheap, and worked with what I could afford until I could afford a better alternative, and have just kept trying to improve. Creating some utopian starting point in terms of needed equipment can quickly break the bank, AND I have seen many many beginners put the cart before the horse so to speak, by purchasing equipment that they not only couldn’t afford based on their knowledge/ability or functional capability(earning capacity), but which may not have really fit the need that they had.

Use ground skidding to get started, and grow from there. That’s my perspective.

Carl

[Author]

Posts