Thicker, wider, or both?

[barbender]

I have been contemplating going to either. 055 or 1 1/2" bands (currently using .045x1 1/4" 7°). My mill is well aligned, but to me I can't get my feed rates up to where I am using the potential the 40 hp diesel has. If I push it, I get waves. So, what would give me better feed rates, thicker or wider. I'd like to just go to 1 1/2s so I could keep the flex life of the .045, but if the .055 is where it's at I'd give up sharpenings for speed. Or should I do both? I want to saw fast with good cut quality, bottom line.

[POSTON WIDEHEAD]

Talk to WM about their new TURBO blade. It's designed for higher HP engines. See what they have to say.

[Magicman]

If I was starting over, I am sure that I would go 1½".  I could then decide by trial whether to use the .045 or .055 thickness.

As it is with my 1¼" blade guides and my investment in blades and in my situation, I doubt that I would ever change.

The changeover would be about a ~$1500 investment which not really bad for a long term investment.

The 1½" blade would dull just as fast as a 1¼" blade, so I do not see that any longer run time between sharpening would be gained.  Only that the more rigid 1½" blade should allow you to saw faster.

[haywire woodlot]

I use 1 1/2" blades, .045 and .055. The .055 don't last as long as the lighter blades because they are not as flexible, but they saw much better in my opinion, especially for breaking down big logs and wide cuts. I also run a bit of extra tension on the thicker blades too. As far as longevity goes they're  done after about 4-5 sharpenings.

[Bibbyman]

Its been my opinion that sawing faster would produce more board feet before getting dull.

[Tee]

This is something I'd asked about previously. I'll be sure to read additional post but by Magics opinion, I may go to 1 1/2" since I don't have a lot of blades.

Bibby,  I remember you asking about the new turbo 7's in a past post. Did you ever try them?

[Bibbyman]

Bibby,  I remember you asking about the new turbo 7's in a past post. Did you ever try them?

Yes.  We got three to test.  I ran two with indifferent results.  Puzzled that they didn't perform as well as I expected I started looking for reasons.  I found plenty.  I replaced a pair of guide pads and one roller. Then tightened up and adjusted the outer guide arm. That may have helped some.  But I think the real problem was a worn out main drive belt.  I have replaced that and sawing speed and quality improved considerably.  I've been waiting until I get at least 50 hours on the new belt before installing the last new Turbo blade. Also for a good hard log to try it on.

My best guess is that the deeper gullet depth causes the blade to pull harder.  (I feel like the 25 HP electric motor has plenty of power. ) And if the main belt is not up to the job, it's not going to keep the speed up.

Also,  the greater gullet depth reduces the blade width from bottom of gullet to back of blade.   So you're starting with a blade that is mechanically as narrow as a standard 7° blade that had been sharpened a quit a few times.

[drobertson]

I run the .042 Cooks super sharp, and found that these are bout as good as I can get for all around cutting. My 51hp cat can run the heavier blades, just not sure the wheel size and risk of band fatigue will warrant the change.  You might give the Lennox C sharps a chance as well, these have nice gullets that handle a faster feed rate as well, and as a side note, I have seen the 1-1/2 blades wave on the lt 70's when the speed was too fast for dust removal.  My opinion is to make quicker moves with the logs and cants, and make up the time here with the material handling,   david

[red oaks lumber]

i switched to 1/1/2 x.055 blades several yrs. ago, i won't go back. the added speed i can cut, more than out weighs the extra cost.

[Dave Shepard]

I think Bibby hit on one thing to look at in his second post, belt tension. On my 51 HP Super, when all other things are in order, and I'm still having trouble, it's time to look at the drive belt tension. I would think that the 1.25" .055" should handle the 40 HP well under most conditions. I'd like to try out some 1.5" .055" bands, but it's a bit of a jump to switch over as Magicman said.

[Magicman]

Its been my opinion that sawing faster would produce more board feet before getting dull.

True Bibby, from that standpoint you would produce more bf, but I have no idea how or if it could be accurately measured. 

I was only thinking about the same teeth being on each blade and how many times that the blade passes through the bark/log.  The obvious dulling.

This sawing business is so diverse with the different sawmills, blades, and sawyers, and sawing techniques, that a definite and absolute answer is sometimes elusive.   smiley_dizzy

[Bibbyman]

 

 
Here's the old vs new belt.  It was time.



 
Here's the 7º Turbo blade on top of a standard 7º.  You have .020 deeper gullet and .020 less blade width in crossection. 

[Larry]

I was surprised last week when I tried my first 1-1/2" band.  Didn't have to change anything for it to saw great.  I suppose having the correct size roller would be better.  If I decide to go with 1-1/2" I'm not going to change a thing until I use up my 1-1/4" bands.

Besides .055 there is a .052 and a .050 thickness sold by other companies.

[JustinW_NZ]

Very interested to hear about the turbo 7s thrown at some harder stuff.
the NZ agent is going to get some in soon and I wondered if they would be good on the hardwood I seem to be sawing lots of.

I run the 1-1/2 by .45 on my larbardini powered lt40, they seem good and last a long time.
A full time mill locally is getting 10-15 sharpens and gets a long run out of them while in use.

Cheers
Justin

[Tee]

While a blade topic is up, there are 2 lots of 15 blades each up for bid or buy now for $275 each w/free shipping on __bay. My question and opinion are; what would you give for a used blade described as: "158"x 1-1/4"x .045" (7 degree), they have been run once for approx. 800 to 1200 board feet each, and will need to be sharpened."
If you order 60 of this size from WM, you get them for a little less than $18 delivered. I think it cost $10 a blade for resharp plus shipping. At that, my opinion is they are worth about $2 a piece and hope they can all be resharpened. What are other opinions just out of curiosity?

[Dave Shepard]

My last box of resharps was $101 for 10 bands, and that included shipping, and I think another FedEx label for when I send back the next time. I know I was quoted $7 each plus shipping.

[Magicman]

Tee, if I am understanding you $275 divided by 15 = $18 each for used blades plus they are dull.  No way.

Correct Dave.  ~$10 per blade includes shipping both ways.   

[barbender]

I have several things I am trying to narrow down, one of which is correct belt tension.  I installed a new drive belt, tensioned it to spec with the WM belt tension guage, and readjusted it after 50 hours. I have a sneaking suspicion it is still slipping just a bit, but I don't want to risk overtensioning and cracking my crank. My goal is to fully utilize the horsepower of the engine, it doesn't make sense to me to have the big expensive diesel if you are only using the horsepower that a 20hp gas puts out. I can definitely speed up the log handling process with practice, but if I'm going to spend time anywhere it's making my opening face. Once I engage the clutch I want the diesel to grunt and get through the cut ;) Thanks for the info, fellas.

[Brucer]

I went from 1-1/4" x 0.045 blades to 1-1/2" x 0.045 blades with a slight improvement in sawing speed.

My friend, John, upgraded to 1-1/2" x 0.050 blades, and he replaced the blade guide rollers with wider ones as well. He can really push the saw through the wood. He figures he's getting similar blade life to the original blades.

We're both using 28 HP Kohler gas engines with EFI.

One thing that often gets overlooked when aligning your mill is the side-to-side angle of the blade guide rollers. The manual shows that they should be tilted slightly to the left when you're facing the cutting side of the blade.

This adjustment is critical. When you're pushing your saw hard the blade will be pressing back against the roller flanges. If the roller isn't tilted as shown, the flange will encounter the back of the blade as the flange is turning down; this will force the back of the blade down slightly and it will climb in the cut until there's enough extra tension in the blade to force it back into place. The blade then drops back to where it's supposed to be and the whole cycle repeats. Nice, regular waves.

Adjusting the roller properly means the back of the blade will press against the upward moving part of the flange and this will keep it tightly against the roller where you want it to be.

[Nomad]

     Another consideration is the type of wood you usually saw.  I cut a lot of urban stuff.  Is the extra speed (and expense) worth it compared to the likelihood of trashing the blade on a drywall screw or eye bolt?
     I bought some 1-1/2 x .055 blades, but I'm having a hard time talking myself into using them on these smaller urban jobs.

[barbender]

You Brucer, I'll look that over. I aligned the mill per the manual, but not with the concept you described in mind. Nomad, I have a few junkers I keep for trash trees. I cut mostly nice forest grown logs ;)