[Carl Russell]

I find that if I cut a block of wood about 3 feet long and at least 12″ dia., lay it cross-ways to my pull, just in front of the butt of the log, run the choker up over that and to the team, I can get enough lift on the roller to pull down just about any stem that I have ever gotten hung up. Of course there are those 20″ dbh and bigger, that can be virtually impossible to move with a team, but I have yet to get a block and tackle or come-along…. I can usually find another tree in the vicinity to smack it with.

I used to get really pissed when I hung up a tree, but now I figure that anybody doing a good job of directional felling is likely to get a tree hung up from time to time. I get leery of cutters who claim they never hang one up, because it makes me think they are just going for the easy fall. When using draft animals and practicing improvement forestry, the felling should be appropriate to those objective of accessibility, and protection of the residual stand. If those goals are primary then there SHOULD be many stems that are going to be felled into places where the line is just plain difficult.

Get good at pulling them down!!!:cool:

Carl

[Carl Russell]

I know it isn’t quite as impressive, but our 8 year old, Bazel, was with me in the woods this afternoon, and when I returned to my team after felling and limbing a tree, I found him asleep on the bench seat of my log cart, where the team/cart was chained to a standing tree waiting for my return.

:rolleyes:

Carl

[Carl Russell]

@Countymouse 32566 wrote:

… The only thing I am still not sure about is the statement that because the front of the sled is not lifted up very often or very far that the tillage aspect is not important or teh effect on drag is minimal

That is not exactly what I meant. What I was trying to describe is that by putting all these logs on a sled, either style, there is a huge reduction in friction. What I was indicating was that I don’t think the tillage from my sled would be significant enough over the other style in comparison with this aforementioned reduction, especially when combined with both the efficiency factor of less energy required to lift to reduce overall ground contact for starting, and the additional maneuverability provided by the rearward located bunk, to make that much difference.

I understand that with greater forward mechanical advantage for lifting, there is a greater force exerted against the soil at the rear of the runner than with the centered bunk, but it is a combination of efficiencies that create the overall functionality, and that soil tillage factor really doesn’t come into play in real working situations.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

So as we have discussed, the runner doesn’t actually spend much time in the air, and therefore the plowing aspect is really a minor factor. I can assure you we are talking about taking a huge amount of friction off of the ground and onto the narrow shoes, which far outstrips the small amount of friction that may be added momentarily by the tillage at the rear of the runner.

Also in the lifting, the height of lift is not as important as the mechanical advantage given to the lift, which affects the limited available power from the horses to actually move the load forward.

The tracking issue is possibly important, but I just locate trails with that in mind, and place slue logs to hold the sled in track, etc. As far as floating on snow, that just doesn’t happen. The first load or two, that may play important, but if there is enough snow to float that sled with a few thousand pounds on it, then it will be so deep that it will pile up under the load and compound the drag. After that the snow will be packed down, and the floating issue is moot.

The component of additional friction, or distribution of ground pressure, is not nearly as significant as the overall reduction in friction created by putting the load on top of the sled, especially as compared to the functional advantage given to turning. The other advantage that the longer front section of the runner gives is in turning. The 2:1 approximate ratio provides mechanical advantage in overcoming the lateral resistance of the runner. Centered-bunk sleds would have 1:1 ratio which doesn’t prevent turning, but doesn’t facilitate it like 2:1.

Putting the bunk too far back will cause the sled to pitch backward which will lift the point of draft, which will decrease the horse’s lifting capacity. There is significant advantage in any sled set-up by providing a low fixed point of draft in relation to a mass that is held off of the ground at a point higher than that hitch point. By having a bearing surface located on top of a runner, the mass is redirected onto the plane where the power is attached. Of course mathematically, the load is more evenly distributed in a centered model, but that even distribution contributes to other factors of resistance that affect functional application.

Based on a long period of experimental application I can say that I see where the design of the sled I use successfully addresses all of these factors to make an extremely effective piece of equipment. Having no experience with another style, my opinion is anecdotal specific to that design, but based on my own mathematical/physical knowledge, I would still prefer the design of the sled I use.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Looking at my sled this afternoon it dawned on me that my sled is set up just like Dwayne describes, only with a foot of the runner cut off the rear. In other words, my bunk is just as far away from the horses as in Dwayne’s model. The difference is the increased leverage under the load, and the 6″ that separates my hook position from that of Dwayne.

As far as the front of the runners coming off of the ground, it is only a miniscule amount, and it is only in those instances when the draft is at its peak, but it is that physical action of lifting forward that actually allows the weight of the load coming back down to ground to add force to propelling it forward……. Draft Buffer.

Sleep……:confused:

Carl

[Carl Russell]

@Mark Cowdrey 32529 wrote:

“By placing the bunk back, it allows more weight to be put on the bunk(more to lift for sure), but by creating mechanical advantage (more runner in front than behind), you tend to make up for that,”
My inserted italics into Carl’s quote. I’m not sure the compensation would be complete, but it is certainly in that direction.

“but there is no mathematical advantage, runner length equal front and back, which amounts to a dead lift.”
I am picturing some mechanical advantage, just not as substantial. Picture a 6′ plank. Put a rock in the center. Lift one end. It takes a certain amount of work. Now lift just the rock (dead left). It takes more work. Now move the rock away from the end of the plank you are lifting, it takes less work to lift the plank end (& the rock.

Am I right on the above comments (Carl? Andy?)?

Carl I am with you all the way on your general reasoning; safety, versatility and economy.

Great thread. I feel like this sort of thing is one of the most valuable contributions DAPNet can make to the draft animal power community.
Mark

Inadvertently working my way through that, my assessments were more comparative than comprehensive.
There is some need to have runner length behind the weight to strike the balance between the dragging the load lift the front of the sled (by tipping backward, which is the reverse of the force that allows the horses to move this load forward), and giving the horses the mechanism to use the lift in their favor. Putting the weight in the center is not as advantageous as moving it behind center.

In either case the advantage given to the horse through facilitation of its lifting power via the fulcrum in the design of a bobsled, is magnified by the reduction of sled-shoe friction. There may be some ability to lift with a centered bunk for sure, but not with the advantage of the lengthened forward runner/fulcrum. By making it easier to lift the font of the runner, you are not just lifting the load, you are reducing ground-friction (inertia) which reduces overall energy exertion. I can’t begin to approach this mathematically, nor do I feel the need personally (although I would look it over with enthusiasm if someone else did), but I can tell you from first hand experience that the design of my sled goes a long way toward bringing all of these factors to a single balance point, making it an extremely valuable piece of equipment.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Tom, not to beat a dead horse (ox), you are a forester, and if you can envision how this work is allowing you to provide a specific forestry product (residual stand) then charge for it.

There is no doubt that the strength of your young steers combined with your learning curve puts you at a competitive disadvantage from a purely production-based standpoint. Everything that has been written above is pertinent, patience, efficiency, and appraisal of the multiple bottom line (profit from enjoyment :cool:), but you can add value to the work you are performing with your forestry skills, and you should not be shy of that, otherwise you are close to buying into the premise that this work is hobby.

I know from personal experience that the first few years can seem like an economic black-hole, so find ways to mitigate that for yourself.

As you think about increasing production, think about cadence. If you have the cattle in the woods while you’re cutting they should be pretty well rested by the time you go to hitch them. Make them work a little harder. Don’t push them ridiculously, but if you work them hard, then rest them, you will get more work out of them, than if you just skid for 4 hours with them. They will quickly learn that the long continual type of energy needed to skid logs for 4 hours is exhausting, and they will develop a slow lethargic approach to work. When they are worked hard for short periods, then allowed to rest, they will be much more enthusiastic workers, because they LOVE to stand around, and this will lead to more efficient production. This will be true regardless of the equipment you employ.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

George, I think that the different design features have everything to do with the seasonality of the use. I want a sled I can use any time of the year, not just on snow. I think that his design gets away with inefficiencies that I don’t want anyway, but specifically during dry-ground use. The value of the single-bunk sled is, to me, too high to limit it to a few months use.

With the bunk back and log weight forward the fulcrum of extra runner length increases the horses ability to lift the weight, AND the friction of the load is reduced by shifting the dragging weight of the logs from that portion on the ground to the narrow steel shoe under two runners. These two factors contribute first by enhancing the bio-mechanics of the horses lifting power, which in and of itself reduces friction (by lifting a portion of the runner off of the ground), but having more weight on the runners than on the dragging logs, the load is easier to pull overall. This latter detail is minimized when working on snow and ice, but in my mind efficiency is efficiency, regardless of the circumstances, and with live power we can maximize our efficiency through the physical design of the equipment we use.

Also by affording increased lift to the front of the runner there is increased maneuverability by lifting the front of the runners off of the ground when turning. With the configuration of my sled, the turning occurs on the heels of the runners more than with Dwayne’s design, which again is less important on snow than on dry ground, but easier is easier….. and it increases the functional application of the equipment (more seasons that just winter).

When I say the horses shouldn’t put lateral pressure on the pole for turning, I mean that when they step gee or haw the sled should turn by being pulled in that direction from the evener, not by being levered over with the pole through the neckyoke. The pole should “float”. As true as this is, there are no doubt instances where there is some lateral pressure on the pole, and in those instances (holding back going around a corner on a steep hill) that I want the strongest pole/roll configuration I can have. I see the A-frame as the kind of insurance that when I need that kind of leverage that I can get it without compromising the integrity of the hitch and jeopardizing the safety and well being of myself and my horses.

As far as turning, even when turning at a stand still, I expect the inside horse to step forward. The power of horses is forward, not sideways. I will have them step over with an empty sled, but there is next to no pressure on the pole/roll connection in that maneuver. When turning a load, it is extremely inefficient to ask a horse to do so in a lateral movement. Time and planning should be taken to give the horses room to move forward while turning. By moving forward at the same time that they move to the side the power is translate through the evener under the load, and the load is turned with no lateral(lever) pressure on the pole.

I think that with long runners and the bunk centered, there is no advantage either for lifting nor for turning. Having the horses closer to the load in this case may seem like they should have more lift, but there is no mathematical advantage, runner length equal front and back, which amounts to a dead lift. And when you combine the fact that you are dragging more log length, it is a lose-lose situation. Then add in the longer runners that create more lateral resistance for turning, and you’ve lost my interest.

By placing the bunk back, it allows more weight to be put on the bunk(more to lift for sure), but by creating mechanical advantage (more runner in front than behind), you make up for that, and then when drawing the load friction is reduced, which in turn increases efficiency for the real power of the work, moving the load over the land. Shorter runners/less shoe combined with the front-of-the-runner-lifting makes much better turning ability increasing overall functionality…….

My sled was originally built by a man who lived near Walden. His family raised Brabants for years, and they logged and sugared with them. I didn’t buy the sled from him, I bought it from Walt Bryan. I never knew whether it was custom-built for Walt based on his own design, or whether it was a standard design that they used for their own purposes. I cannot remember the family name for the life of me….. maybe Dwayne knows who they were/are.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

@Does’ Leap 32460 wrote:

…

1. He likes to place his bunk centered on the runner or an inch in front of center. …..

George

George, I looked at my sled just now, and the center of the bunk is at 2′ 4″ from the tail-end, which would put it just behind centered over the ground bearing portion of the runner (5′), but it is approximately 2/3 back from the roll….

Carl

[Carl Russell]

He likes a swing bunk, not a fixed bunk. Dwayne uses the same chaining method as Carl (as far as I can tell) and asserts that there is not too much swing to the bunk, but just enough to help around turns.

I have found the swing bunk to be less stable, it creates another point of variability in the hitch, and logs get loose, the swing bunk doesn’t always return and re-center, and I have rolled a loaded sled because of this allowing the load to get off-center. Anyway, I have never found a stationary bunk, chained as I do, with short runners, and the bunk set back, to limit maneuverability.

He likes a longer runner – 6’ on the ground plus the sweep of the nose. He states there is more floatation in a longer runner with plenty of maneuverability.

I’m sure that what he says is correct, but I don’t use my sled exclusively in snow, and I like to have less shoe on the ground for maneuverability on dry ground.

He likes to place his bunk centered on the runner or an inch in front of center. He related an argument amongst old sled makers. Some believed that the slightly ahead-of-center bunk facilitates the horses lifting the load. Irregardless, this bunk placement is different from Carl’s sled where the bunk is 2’ from the rear of the sled. Carl, is this measurement OC or to the edge of the bunk?

His math is actually incorrect. With more runner length in front of the bunk, the horses have increased fulcrum to lift the weight, which make it easier…..but to each their own. The 2′ measures from the rear-end of the runner to the back edge of the bunk on my sled.

He does not make stake pockets on his bunks. Brad and Carl, do you use stakes much to keep your logs from rolling off the opposite side of the sled when loading?

I like stake pockets only to keep the ends of my bunks from splitting…. I actually started this when I used the swing bunk (outfitted with stake pockets because many times the best use for a swing bunk is the combination of many small stems under one binder chain and stakes assist in securing this type of load), and after I tipped the sled over I drove two long bolts down through it and made it stationary!! Additionally I find the pockets to have incidental uses like holding a peavey, or chain binder (I put a block or my chain binder in there when I start loading to keep logs from rolling off the other side), or to hook a chain on for rolling logs up, etc….

His gooseneck does not rest on the top of the role, but sits on the back side of the roll toward the bunk. He says this facilitates hitching the horses closer to the load.

The closer the horses are to the bunk, the more log is behind the bunk. It makes sense to get horses close to a load, but on a single bunk sled, the more log you can put in front of the bunk, the more advantage the horses will have.

He does not use stabilizers that go from the role the back of pole. He feels that the feather bolts, gooseneck and mortised pole are plenty strong and that the horses might hit their hocks on those braces in certain circumstances. This might only be the case with the gooseneck on the back of the role putting the horses that much further back?

Same as above, and as I want to use my sled on dirt, I like to have the extra security of the A-frame. My horses are hitched so that they never come close to the A-frame, and the butt ends of my logs often extend past my roll anyway…. The horses shouldn’t put too much lateral pressure on the pole for turning anyway, but the A-frame means to me that will never be a weak link in my sled. Feather bolts are plenty adequate, but any pressure that the pole does apply to the turning of the sled will be at the center of the roll, the A-frame transfers that pressure to a wider center of fulcrum, which in the long run will protect the integrity of the roll.

His likes to place the dip in his rave irons (for the skid) in back of the bunk instead of in front. He feels like by placing the skid in the front of the bunk, you are more likely to catch the back corner of the bunk with your log as you roll it onto the bunk.

I just use a larger diameter skid, and don’t have the problem.

All-in-all, it just comes down to personal preference. I wouldn’t want my sled made that way, but it sounds like he has it pretty well thought out, and he sounds like a quality craftsman.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

There is a commonn misconception that horses, or any animal for that matter, focus on the details of a situation. It makes no difference to the horse if there are blinders or not. What they care about is whether or not you are giving them adequate guidance given the situation.

If their sight is limited, and that affects the situation, then how are YOU going to deal with that? Sure remove the blinder, but that won’t improve your leadership, it just removes a physical barrier allowing the horse to arrive at its own comfort zone….. without your guidance.

It also just perpetuates your focus on material aspects of the situation, as if they actually matter. If instead you focus on effective leadership in guiding your animals, it shouldn’t matter if they are blind, blindered, or under attack from a saber toothed tiger. The pieces of your harness, bridle, bit, etc., are tools you use to accomplish your task, while they facilitate your communication, don’t let them distract you from actually improving communication.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

@Does’ Leap 32419 wrote:

Brad and Carl:

Regarding the runner length, is that 6′ on the ground (i.e. the straight section of the runner) or 6′ total (including the sweep in the nose)?

George

The runners are 6′ from front pin to the rear end. 6′ 4″ overall. Back of bunk is 2′ from rear of the runner.
These plans show 4″ runners.

This is horizontal measurement…..as in the diagram. I cut the runners out of square blanks so these measurements are easier to make accurately. If you have to stretch a tape around a curve it can be pretty complicated and inconsistent.

The very top of the vertical measurement for the nose of the upward curve of the runner is 12″ and the vertical height of the center of the pin is 9″.

There are a few measurements that I left out of my diagram because I drew the original on 1/4 inch graph paper at a scale on 1″ = 1′. I think that there is actually 5′ of runner on the ground.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

@Bradbury Johnson 32339 wrote:

George-
I have runners that are just about 6 feet long. This length gives several advantages. First, the tool fits in the back of my short bed pick-up and I can still shut the tailgate. This is of great advantage to me as I am always on the move with my sled for work. Second, and more importantly, the shorter runners make the sled much easier to turn and maneuver. My runners are basically 4×6 with a moccasin (the steel shoe is 3″ wide on the bottom), and I get plenty of float without the added weight and length of a longer runner. When you speak to John, run this question by him, but I think you will get a similar answer. Carl, do you agree here?
-Brad

Yep, all of the above. I have 5×6’s right now because the runner blanks I had were sawed out by a friend who cut them that way. Prior to that I always had 4×6’s. The 4″ runner definitely doesn’t float like the wider ones, and after last winter I felt like I would be glad to try the wider ones. 6×6’s won’t add that much more weight, but I just don’t think they need to be that wide…..

The runners are 6′ from front pin to the rear end. 6′ 4″ overall. Back of bunk is 2′ from rear of the runner.
These plans show 4″ runners.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

@Does’ Leap 32317 wrote:

Brad, thanks for the recommendation. I will contact John.

Carl, why not attach to the runners?

George

If you make them short enough they should work, but they should run under the runner just in front of the bunk….

Carl

[Carl Russell]

And here is a link to a short clip of using the bobsled last summer in red spruce….

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eZSZS-YnbM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eZSZS-YnbM

Carl

[Author]

Posts