swedish equipment/ short wood method

[Jim Ostergard]

Simon,
Thanks for the pictures. What with having the walking beams and front axle it should not be too hard for me to build the rest of the wagon. I think the wire crane makes the most sense from my economical stand point.
Haven’t had any work for the new horse except my own wood and have had to hire out to a skidder crew this winter. Been cutting wind thrown spruce in 3 feet of snow and wicked mish mash of stems. Sold my heavy Stihl 441 and went to a smaller Jonesered 2252. Figure it was a gift to myself as I get a bit too close to 70. Again thanks for the photos and I will post a picture on the wagon when I get it built. Hope all is well over there.
Jim

[jac]

So does this mean George’s horses are working at more of a disadvantage than with a Swedish style set up ??

[Does’ Leap]

John:

With the hitch point so high, the animals are working at a disadvantage. With the lower hitch, the animals are actually able to lift the load (as Carl has described so aptly in previous posts).

One advantage of this logging arch IMHO is that you get considerable lift on your log. This translates into less resistance and also a considerable pendulum effect of the chain when starting a large load. My horses noticed a big difference when starting a loaded scoot b/c they can’t get that forward momentum (even half a step) before they feel the load.

Another plus is the clearance under the arch enables you to drive over the log and other obstacles. Instead of driving past my log, geeing the horses and backing up to it, I will approach it an an angle (heading toward the log), drive one horse and wheel over the log and I am ready to hitch. Seems like a small thing, but all that geeing and hawing and backing in this deep snow tires my horses.

George

[john plowden]

There are advantages to both rigs – clearance is a big one though my rig will drive over and hitch like the “Forest” rig – I have one that a friend gave me before he past – and my hitch point is high enough to get the pendulum effect as well -The issue that I have with it is the angle of the posts from the axles to the chain hitch is to steep so that when a heavy log is hitched the pole tends to lift and the wheels trig on even the smallest obstacle -and that the evener is attached so high – brad johnson has an arch that I built and have used for years that has the same lift but a much sharper angle – Any time you can avoid backing is an advantage –
John

[Tim Harrigan]

Another important dynamic is wheel height. The height of the wheel has a big effect on the ability to roll over rough terrain. When smaller wheels roll over a rock, a log, out of a rut they pull like they are moving up a steep incline. Larger wheels respond the same way, but over the same obstacle it will pull as if as if the incline is much less. And if you are riding the arch you will notice the difference because the small wheels will feel much rougher. So I think it is important to think of the functionality of the cart within the operational environment and for me ground clearance, flotation and the maneuverability that large tires provide over obstacles, in soft and muddy ground and in snow has value. A lot of arches in the US are designed for operator transport as well as log transport.

Hitch angle is an important starting point in discussions of animal draft, and it always needs to be considered, but it can’t be overly restrictive regarding implications for design. That optimal angle with a low hitch point is most important with large loads that offer considerable ground resistance, like ground skidding. That is because it allows the animal or team to use both the strength of the hind end and by balancing the mass of the front end, create an incredibly efficient pushing force. So it is most important in starting the load, but somewhat less important once the load starts and momentum comes into play because less force is required to keep the load moving than to start it.

When we add wheels the resistance is less, the pendulum effect of the log allows the team to move an instant before the load, the down-swing of the load actually gives a little push, and in the places where resistance is high and the log gets drawn out, the high draft is buffered by the elasticity provided by the swing in the chain. The lowered resistance and mechanical advantage of the arch diminish the importance of the steep hitch angle relative to ground skidding. It becomes more of an animal comfort issue and proper hitching should take care of that. So I have a hard time making the case that either arch is superior based on the hitch angle provided. In cases where the low hitch point is most important with the smaller wheels, the low hitch is less important with the larger wheel.

[john plowden]

well put Tim – I think both tools have their place perhaps in different situations and that we as teamsters need to choose for our animal’s comfort the tool that works for each one –

[jac]

Good to hear the views guys, thanks for the replies..
John

[simon lenihan]

I can not see why you can not have a low hitch point on the arch, the pole extends a few inches from the rig, drops at 90degrees lets say 12″ from the ground and the pole then comes up at an angle similar to shafts on swedish equipment [ i stand corrected ]. I can see an arguement for ground clearance if the log was lifted more than 12″ off the ground but in alot of cases it seems to be just a couple of inches off the ground and also i can see the pendilum effect having adverse effect working on rough uphill pulls. Nearly all swedish equipment has a low hitch point to maximise the load a single horse can pull due to the tight confines of the conifer stands. I have seen the fisher arch in action with jason and chad and it is simple and efficent and can move large loads and as Tim said the larger wheels make up for the high point of draft. They all have there place.
simon lenihan

[jac]

I watched Jasons video film that he posted on the web page further up and it showed a shot that demonstrated how the arch with the higher hitch works a treat… great film…
John

[simon lenihan]

jim,
The front axle for the wire crane forwarder has to be ackman type where it pivots at the center point. There has to be a hydraulic arm fitted either side of center to allow the whole unit to be locked during loading. The forwarder should be at least 6 foot 6″ wide and as low as you can get away with for stability. I will try and get some pics of my friends forwarder.
simon lenihan

[Mike Rock]

Simon,
That 6’6″ dimension is the answer to my question earlier about outriggers.
Thank you. Do you see any instability when picking off to the side to load a second unit, after the first is full? As with all things, I imagine that common sense keeps one from tipping much.

Most respectfully,
Mike Rock

[mstacy]

We often lose sight of the fact that we are basically dealing with a 2hp tractor yet many draft implements tend to be rather crude (heavy sledges, rough wheels & bearings, etc). We don’t have much power to waste on friction or heavy implements. Ideally draft implements would have more in common with bicycles (thin wall tube construction) than tractor implements.

Much of the equipment displayed in this thread is truly fantastic. Light weight and strong. From the photos I’ll wager that the 6 wheeled wagons are more efficient (payload as a percentage of total load) than the 8 wheel setups. All the hardware (wheels, tires, etc) seems to be the same size and the load is biased toward the rear set of wheels.

Ideally all the wheels would be evenly weighted.

Thanks for all the great photos and comments in this thread.

Regards,

Matt

[simon lenihan]

more examples including battery powered wire crane forwarder.
simon lenihan

[simon lenihan]

8 wheeler, light, strong and multi purpose.
simon lenihan

[Author]

Posts