Logging Arch

[ethalernull]

i’m in the process of swapping out wheels/tires on a used log cart i bought.. any opinions out there regarding what shape the tread is in on tires for a log cart? I have some options lying around the farm that are a bit bald that I would think might lend themselves to sliding sideways on slippery hillsides.

[Brad Johnson]

I have played around with a variety of old worn tires on my arch, and I have a mismatched pair on now. The one snow tire that is on the arch does work a little better when things are slick but I don’t know that is makes all that much difference. A think sidewall is more important in my mind.
-Brad

[JaredWoodcock]

I just got the Barden cart plans in the mail, Thanks Carl!!! I will try to remember to take pictures as I build it to post but Im pretty bad at that.

Thanks Again

[JJK]

I have been looking over the Barden plans as well. I was wondering if it was worth considering bringing the back forward to the front side of the seat. It shouldn’t require more material other than maybe a couple braces. You would lose the storage space under the seat, but this would allow you to straddle the log a little to shorten the chain even more. I guess this would put more weight on the pole. Would this be too much? I’m just thinking out loud not saying there’s anything wrong with the plans as they are.

Josh

[Donn Hewes]

As far as weight on the tongue goes: this system revolves around the center of the wheel. Whether the tightened chain passes under or over the imaginary line through the center of the wheels determines if you are lifting the tongue or pulling down on it. Most log carts create varying degrees of lift on the tongue. In most cases this doesn’t offset the carts natural tongue weight, but in some cases it can. When you move forward you also lose the seat!

One of the things I would do now, and still might do for my new cart is add the axles last in order to help balance the cart as best I can. My friend Ken Gies just made new cart where he welded the new spindles in a long piece of square stock and clamped it in place. Once was adjusted right where he wanted it, (forward, back, plumb, square) he welded it to the frame and cut out the long piece from the center. This would work good for me.

[carl ny]

Donn;

I think JJK meant to leave the seat where it is and also where you hook the chains. Just move the backing plate from the back of the seat to the front of the seat, thus allowing you to be able to back over the end of the log a little bit before you hook. Just the way I understood him.

Carl nny

[JJK]

Carl ny your understanding is right. I’m not great at articulating my thoughts. The wheels, seat, and hooks would remain the same, the backing plate would move 10 inches forward to the front of the seat frame. If you’re hooked ten inches or so back on the log this will allow you to get close to perpendicular with the chain so more lift (if I’m thinking about it right). This might require some braces since the framework is moved. Maybe it’s not worth the lost storage space but it seems this design has more room to play with than most arch designs. Just wondering what folks thought about it. Thanks.
Josh

[Donn Hewes]

My bad, I think there are quite a few folks, including Carl Russell, who have used the cart a lot. Carl has never felt a need for that extra lift I don’t think. It will be interesting to see if Carl joins in.

[JJK]

Donn,
I got thinking about it, it would be basically how your cart is but with a bar across the backside of the seat with the hooks on it. Might just be chasing diminishing returns tho, or throwing something else out of wack that I haven’t considered.

Ps we must have sent the last two replies at the same time, I hadn’t read your comment before sending mine. I can see how, if read a certain way it might come off as snippy, that wasn’t my intention.

• This reply was modified 8 years, 10 months ago by JJK.

[Donn Hewes]

I think the ideas are good. That is the beauty of making your own stuff. I have never had a cart with the storage space but I can see how important that could be to working in some situations. The cart plans call for 1 1/2 by 3/16 tubing I think. This would be a small weight savings over mine. That cart is slightly shorter in the foot tread area. That too would reduce tongue weight by a little. So far the only thing I am not 100% thrilled with on my cart is the tongue weight. Soon I will test the tongue with a bathroom scale, and see what it’s weight with and with out a person. Also with the dump cart on. Then I might set it up on jack stands and see if I can change it much by moving the spindles forward 2″, 4″, etc. I thought it handled logs great the other day. Used the new bigger sides on the dump cart today with a new latch, and they worked great.

[daniel grover]

Donn–awesome to hear that you modified the dump cart–any photos or videos with the changes?

Hope you’re well,

Daniel

[Carl Russell]

I think using D-ring harnesses, the discussion of pole weight is moot. 1500 pound horses can easily carry 200-300 pound person on their backs over challenging terrain. Adjusted correctly so that pole weight is born on the Jack saddle, a team of horses can handle any pole weight one could attach to a feasible horse powered impliment.

The more important issue would be if back pads are cushioned, or just plain leather.

Also, the way draft affects the weight on the pole will have affect in handling, i.e. If there is too much lift the animals can have difficulty maneuvering the device.

As far as Josh’s idea of moving the back plate forward, it seems reasonable to me. I think part of that design is remnant of the original where Les had a square tube axle welded on to accept the wheel spindles. I think in principle it would work. One might want to look in my tool box first though to see what they might be giving up…. ?….. Althogh I got to say there would be a lot less to pick up after the occasional tip over.

I know that some types of carts are actually built with the hitch bar slightly ahead of the axle, and have log headroom as Josh describes. This does allow for a closer hitch, and if the hitch is ahead of the axle allows for a slightly more effective mechanical advantage.

However, after using carts of this design for over 20 years, I can say that moving the back plate forward has never occurred to me as a critical design alteration. It certainly wouldn’t cause any failure in function as far as I can see. The only drawback that I can think of, is that the wheels would be more exposed when turning tightly.. Which would not be a huge detriment, but I think it might be an issue to watch.

I know that Les would be pleased to know you thoughtful fabricators are working over these plans……

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Thinking as I’m putting on my boots…… One major drawback from moving the backplate forward would be the complimentary use of this cart for hitching other implements such as wagons, etc by way of the drawbar that can be inserted into the bottom of that backplate structure.

Truthfully, it can still be accomplished, just turning radius again will be impacted. This cart was clearly designed to be a logging cart, but it can be used for many farm uses, which is different from other dedicated logging designs.

Carl

• This reply was modified 8 years, 10 months ago by Carl Russell.

[Mark Cowdrey]

I would submit that tongue weight is not entirely moot. Many folks are using western harness and a design that can work well w either type is a value to the community. Even w a D-ring harness, the weight has, for me, a not insignificant impact on the teamster when hitching and un-hitching.
I echo your point about back pads.
Mark

[Carl Russell]

Good points Mark. The teamster handling issue is what I meant by “a feasible horse powered impliment”…..

I have to say that pole weight is a perpetual, and critical issue for users of Western harnesses. Even with mowers, wagon tongues, scoot poles, and the like, the weight of the pole has potential significant impact on neck, shoulders, and draft to an extent. Of course that is not to mention other issues related to draft and collar pitching due to draft angle….

While your point about the value of having equipment that can be used with both may seem reasonable on the surface, that principle is already not being applied in equipment design and use, as evidenced by the fact that it remains a constant concern.

Pole weight is never an issue for me on any impliment found in use in the draft animal world.

I submit that if teamsters want to make pole weight a significant issue in implement design and use, then they have a solution that is very accessible and functionally versatile…… the D-ring harness…..

Carl

[Author]

Posts