@@SawChainTheories I think I can point out the disadvantage of a progressive gauge used after sharpening the cutting edges. When using such a gauge, one presses with some force on the cutting corner, which, when the gauge is made of a more convenient to use hard steel (62 HRC for Stihl “3-in-1” aka FL), can somewhat spoil the effects of the sharpening done beforehand.
Regarding that last picture coming from Stihl so far, I am not sure why there is such a difference in the Oregon/Carlton and Stihl recommendations for filing bumper drive links or tie straps. Based on this picture, and at least the manual for USG, Stihl rather allows them to be filed, while Oregon rather does not. In the past, there was an exception in Oregon's instructions for certain chain types (e.g 33/34/35 SL) where they allowed it. I suppose Oregon (and Carlton) may only have a constant depth gauge on offer for this very reason, although I've never checked to be sure that during the life of the chain and using the recommended gauge you don't file these anti-kickback components. And how does this relate to Husqvarna chains sourced from Oregon, on which Husqvarna uses a progressive gauge? Maybe that's why their gauge is not as aggressive as Stihl's. Maybe someday someone will be able to test this...
Good question and I honestly don't know. I might know the answer to the different angles / height of the different brands of gauges. Not all chains have the same clearance angles and if we go too far the entire top plate makes contact with the wood.
@@SawChainTheories I'm not sure if when it comes to the height of the depth gauges and the clearance angle I understood you correctly. Do you mean the clearance/relief angle of the top plate? If I increase the depth gauge setting then the top plate can tilt more, that is, the "angle of attack" increases. This parameter still depends very strongly on the chain tension. Why would this cause increased contact between the surface of the top plate and the wood? Besides, in what are probably Stihl's most recent sharpening tips on their website I mentioned recently, they recommend using one of 3 methods for setting the depth gauges: a 2-in-1 guide, a constant gauge and a progressive gauge. As we know for each of these 3 cases we will get slightly different depths.
@@elpolaco7654 Yes, the more it tilts back, the more of the top plate contacts the wood. I can only see this in a very basic way but that appears to be happening. The top plate clearance angles I have measured fall anywhere in the 6 - 12 degree range. Some chains have a problem earlier than others. To make it more complicated, this is not an issue once the cutter is very short. Once the leading edge is behind the pivot point of the rear rivet it stops becoming an issue. Going back to Carltons idea with his file o plate - this is where it matters. Everything changes from that point on If I could just stop the cutters from bending or snapping off beyond this point I would be able to see the real potential of his idea. Unfortunately there is a very limited amount of chains that I can do this with so we are back to the original question of - is one type of gauge better than the other in the usable part of the chain? For me so far, no. I will keep trying
@@SawChainTheories I hope someday you will find some time to explain this basic concept to us less fortunate. In Carlton's infamous manual published when they were still supplying File-O-Plate, and in which they recommended a progressive way of maintaining the depth gauges, there is information about the critical influence of the position of the leading edge relative to the "hinge point", which is behind the rear rivet of the cutter link (so not the pivot point of the rivet). But when I looked at some of the chains I have here, this theoretical problem should not really matter, because the end of the cutter in them is either in front of this “hinge point” which is the end of the heel that can make contact with the bar, or it is so close to it that the length of the remaining top plate is then practically useless. On the other hand, for example, in the case of A3LM, it looks in the picture that a chunk of cutter may be behind this "hinge point". That is, it looks like the usefulness of this (Carlton) idea will depend on the geometry of the cutter link.
@elpolaco7654 I'm honestly at the point where I don't know if I can explain what works for this. In theory there should be a benefit at all stages from the extra depth. It definitely feels fast when using the chains but the times show it isn't. My first thought was to throw more power at the problem but now I'm wondering if this could be a chain speed issue. When carlton started designing the plates most saws were large displacement, low rpm saws with slower chain speeds. Maybe running something like an 08S will show the difference better? Really not sure what to try next. I used to believe this worked but the shape seems to be the deciding factor as long as the depth is in range. I have setup a different way of measuring the depth gauge height, maybe I start with them high at 0.30 or 0.40mm and lower them in increments to see what happens I just don't know at this stage
Great work!👍
You nailed it as most folks don't pay attention to the shape of their depth gauges - well done 👍👍
So far out of everything I have tested, this makes the biggest difference between the 2 styles of gauge
@@SawChainTheories I think I can point out the disadvantage of a progressive gauge used after sharpening the cutting edges. When using such a gauge, one presses with some force on the cutting corner, which, when the gauge is made of a more convenient to use hard steel (62 HRC for Stihl “3-in-1” aka FL), can somewhat spoil the effects of the sharpening done beforehand.
Regarding that last picture coming from Stihl so far, I am not sure why there is such a difference in the Oregon/Carlton and Stihl recommendations for filing bumper drive links or tie straps.
Based on this picture, and at least the manual for USG, Stihl rather allows them to be filed, while Oregon rather does not.
In the past, there was an exception in Oregon's instructions for certain chain types (e.g 33/34/35 SL) where they allowed it.
I suppose Oregon (and Carlton) may only have a constant depth gauge on offer for this very reason, although I've never checked to be sure that during the life of the chain and using the recommended gauge you don't file these anti-kickback components.
And how does this relate to Husqvarna chains sourced from Oregon, on which Husqvarna uses a progressive gauge? Maybe that's why their gauge is not as aggressive as Stihl's. Maybe someday someone will be able to test this...
Good question and I honestly don't know.
I might know the answer to the different angles / height of the different brands of gauges. Not all chains have the same clearance angles and if we go too far the entire top plate makes contact with the wood.
@@SawChainTheories I'm not sure if when it comes to the height of the depth gauges and the clearance angle I understood you correctly. Do you mean the clearance/relief angle of the top plate?
If I increase the depth gauge setting then the top plate can tilt more, that is, the "angle of attack" increases. This parameter still depends very strongly on the chain tension.
Why would this cause increased contact between the surface of the top plate and the wood?
Besides, in what are probably Stihl's most recent sharpening tips on their website I mentioned recently, they recommend using one of 3 methods for setting the depth gauges: a 2-in-1 guide, a constant gauge and a progressive gauge.
As we know for each of these 3 cases we will get slightly different depths.
@@elpolaco7654 Yes, the more it tilts back, the more of the top plate contacts the wood. I can only see this in a very basic way but that appears to be happening.
The top plate clearance angles I have measured fall anywhere in the 6 - 12 degree range. Some chains have a problem earlier than others.
To make it more complicated, this is not an issue once the cutter is very short. Once the leading edge is behind the pivot point of the rear rivet it stops becoming an issue. Going back to Carltons idea with his file o plate - this is where it matters. Everything changes from that point on
If I could just stop the cutters from bending or snapping off beyond this point I would be able to see the real potential of his idea. Unfortunately there is a very limited amount of chains that I can do this with so we are back to the original question of - is one type of gauge better than the other in the usable part of the chain? For me so far, no. I will keep trying
@@SawChainTheories I hope someday you will find some time to explain this basic concept to us less fortunate.
In Carlton's infamous manual published when they were still supplying File-O-Plate, and in which they recommended a progressive way of maintaining the depth gauges, there is information about the critical influence of the position of the leading edge relative to the "hinge point", which is behind the rear rivet of the cutter link (so not the pivot point of the rivet).
But when I looked at some of the chains I have here, this theoretical problem should not really matter, because the end of the cutter in them is either in front of this “hinge point” which is the end of the heel that can make contact with the bar, or it is so close to it that the length of the remaining top plate is then practically useless.
On the other hand, for example, in the case of A3LM, it looks in the picture that a chunk of cutter may be behind this "hinge point".
That is, it looks like the usefulness of this (Carlton) idea will depend on the geometry of the cutter link.
@elpolaco7654 I'm honestly at the point where I don't know if I can explain what works for this. In theory there should be a benefit at all stages from the extra depth. It definitely feels fast when using the chains but the times show it isn't.
My first thought was to throw more power at the problem but now I'm wondering if this could be a chain speed issue. When carlton started designing the plates most saws were large displacement, low rpm saws with slower chain speeds. Maybe running something like an 08S will show the difference better?
Really not sure what to try next. I used to believe this worked but the shape seems to be the deciding factor as long as the depth is in range. I have setup a different way of measuring the depth gauge height, maybe I start with them high at 0.30 or 0.40mm and lower them in increments to see what happens
I just don't know at this stage