log scale vs. board feet you actually get

[road_monkey]

I cut some hemlock out of my woods to have my neighbor saw for me to finish off the interior of my cabin. I scaled the logs, figured I had 465 ft doyle, but I figured I needed around 500 ft to do what I wanted inside the cabin. I mentioned this to my neighbor, he said "that's plenty, it will just about double".   I said "huh??"    he said you will probably end up with 8-900ft.    well, he sawed it (with a t.a. Schmidt bandmill) and I counted every piece, added it all up on paper, ended up with 1117 bd. ft.    my question is, why do we still use this system if its so far off?  as a landowner that sells logs from time to time, I feel like I have been getting screwed for the last 22 years.  what kind of overrun do you guys typically get on your bandmills?   this worked out to be 2.4 times the volume.

[road_monkey]

the cabin



 



 



 

logs in question.


 

lumber


 

[Peter Drouin]

In NH we use International ¼" and that is close to the BF to lumber scale. I run 5 to 10 BF over on a log or right on.  And that's because I have an 1/8" cut not a ¼
I would not sell logs on a doyle scale.

[Magicman]

Doyle, Scribner C, and International ¼ are all very close with 20" plus logs, but Doyle is off big time as the logs get smaller.  It is ridiculously off with 12" and smaller logs.

[WV Sawmiller]

   Seems the Doyle scale is rapidly going out of scale. Till then I'd just make sure you sell or pay accordingly. If Doyle actually yields twice the wood I'd just charge twice as much to anyone buying my logs who wanted to use it.

[Magicman]

The problem is that the difference is not linear.  Doyle is not twice with all log diameters.  The scales are ~equal above 20", but Doyle drops off with a steeper curve below 20".

[Bandmill Bandit]

I like the international scale my self. Find it is with in about +/- 10%.

Have also discovered that the doyle scale actually works not bad IF you scale from the big end of the log AND you are sawing with a band saw. Comes out real close to the International scale. 

[YoungStump]

 The Doyle scale is the most popular around here, basically it automatically penalizes the logger for selling small logs. Waste and processing costs are higher with smaller logs also the logs will not yield near the amount of upper grade lumber as bigger logs.
I don't look at the footage a log scales as an accurate representation of the amount of footage it will saw out to, but as a pre-agreed upon basis for determining log value. There is no way we could afford to pay what we do (per bf) for logs if we were buying on the international scale.
  Depending on what species of wood you are sawing and what type of lumber you are producing I can see where the international scale would make more sense.

[Magicman]

I had never even thought about using the scale on the bottom end.   : :P

[GAB]

road_monkey:
I have an inexpensive and educational suggestion for you.
The next rainy day sit down with a calculator, some log scales, and some paper and make up an imaginary load of small logs, and do the same for medium size logs and also for large logs.  Then scale those loads with all the scales you care to use and compare the results.  This should be an eye opener for you.
I sawed a pile of logs for a fellow who was buying them.
These logs were sawed within the previous few months.  Some were butt logs and some were the second, third and fourth log up.
I measured the diameter inside the bark and the length rounded off to the nearest foot as they were loaded onto the mill.  No allowances were made for any of the log defects.
According to the Doyle scale there was 5236 board feet of lumber.
According to the Int'l 1/4" scale there was 7360 board feet of lumber.
I only sawed 9259 board feet.
If my memory serves me correctly I sawed all 1" and 2" material.
Gerald

[Hackermatack]

That sounds about rite, if I really pinch a small log I can nearly double the scale but I usually don't unless it is something really special. After all how many 1 x 3 x 6' can I use. Big logs maybe 10%. International is predominate here because of vigorous lumber trade with Canada.

[road_monkey]

Gab,   Just curious,  what end of the logs did you scale?  When i scaled mine, i did the small end

[GAB]

Gab,   Just curious,  what end of the logs did you scale?  When i scaled mine, i did the small end

I always measure the small end because when I cut trees I try very hard not to leave high stumps especially cherry.  For example 1 foot on the stump of a 30" diameter cherry is approx 40 board feet of lumber, and at $1200/thousand that equates to roughly $48.00.  Do 100 hundred like that and you are talking some serious coins in my opinion.  I have a chainsaw to handle the but flare if I need to.
I hope you were not offended by my suggestion.
Gerald

[Hackermatack]

Never seen anyone scale anything other than the small end but scale can vary quite a bit from scaler to scaler on the same log. Some will scale at the smallest possible diameter, many games are played depending on price, quality, and supply and demand. My son sent a simi load of the prettiest pine I ever saw last fall, it scaled just over 10,000 feet. The trucker said he had been hauling with the same trailer for several years and never had a load scale over 9500. Nice logs and they wanted him to come back!

[sandsawmill14]

normally the price is within a few dollars no matter what scale is used i normally 50-100 dollars per thousand doyle than the prices ive seen paid for int 1/4 but there are so few using the int 1/4 i dont know if its like that everywhere or not. but i can tell you about 30-35% of the logs we get are 10"or under and they are worth about 4 bucks delivered they will make 4 boards and and a 4x6 bringing 8-9 bucks after its sawed :-\  years ago when we bought logs by grade if it was under 11" it brought $175 per 1000  and even if it is a butt log you will only get 2 boards that are fas if your lucky they are so small you are in the pith by the time you get the slab off and the grade lowers with every cut.  if it wasnt for the over run no one could buy them. the only mill i knew of using int 1/4 was paying $300 per 1000 and we were paying 425  but it all ends up the same in the end.    besides if you are selling saw logs instead of pulp  ;D the 2 scales are really close to each other in the middle and doyle favors the logger on the big logs

[sandsawmill14]

the  small end is correct for all scales that i have seen

[road_monkey]

Gab,   Absolutely no offense taken, but im not sure what i was supposed to learn on the experiment.  My question was more geared toward the overrun of doyle scale on the size of the logs pictured

[Magicman]

BB never said that scaling a log from the bottom end was correct, but that it seemed to overcame the built-in deficiency of scaling small logs with the Doyle scale.

[WV Sawmiller]

   I still say either scale is fair as long as you both agree, measure the same way and pay accordingly. I prefer international 1/4 and have it on the back of my business card as more accurate representation of what a customer will get out of his logs on my mill (I tell them we will normally beat it if good straight logs) but if I were buying or selling logs and the customer insisted on using Doyle I'd just sell for a different rate.

[Chuck White]

Whenever I scale logs (not very often) for a customer I always use International 1/4 inch and add 20% and it comes out pretty close to lumber actually sawn!

[Bandmill Bandit]

BB never said that scaling a log from the bottom end was correct, but that it seemed to overcame the built-in deficiency of scaling small logs with the Doyle scale.

Yea I got that MM. I guess I should have worded it a bit different. Didn't mean to imply that you were incorrect. just meant to give another example that I have found to be fair most of the time. BUT as you point out as the diameter decreases the accuracy goes to pot on all the scaling methods.   

[Ohio_Bill]

Another thing that makes you think you are getting very high oversaw % is scale was for 4/4 hardwood sawn with a circle mill.  4/4 hardwood is 1and 1/8 inch thick. So if you saw 1 inch thick that its self is a 12.5% increase and about another 12.5 % for kerf if you're using a band mill. 

[road_monkey]

interesting reading I found:

https://extension.tennessee.edu/publications/Documents/Pb1650.pdf

doyle was invented before 1850, scribner was 1846, international 1/8" rule was 1906, but in 1917 changed to 1/4" rule.
just seems to me in these modern times we could come up with/use a more accurate means of dealing with logs and lumber

[Dave Shepard]

It really doesn't matter what the yield is from any scale system. It is simply a measure on which to base payment.  Int. 1/4" is the most commonly used around here. If I buy a thousand feet of pine on the 1/4", it doesn't matter what I do with it. I could saw it on a circle mill, a bandmill, run it through a shavings mill, or attempt to smoke each log like a giant cigar. The best analogy I've come up with is a gallon of gasoline. Should someone getting 40 mpg with their Civic pay more per gallon than someone with a pickup truck just because they have a more efficient vehicle? No. It's just a unit of measure.

[road_monkey]

dave, yes it does matter for the purpose of sawing.  lets say I brought these logs to your mill to saw for me.  we agreed on $.25 per bd.ft.    I scale them in front of you and we both agree there is 465 bd. ft., and I hand you $114.    or I come back tomorrow after you sawed my logs, we count up everything, and agree there is 1117 bd.ft, and I give you $279.25.    see my point?

[Dave Shepard]

If you are hiring sawing by the board foot, you should be paying on yield, not on log scale. I've never heard of anyone charging for sawing based on log scale.


edit: My first post was in response to this part of your original post: " as a landowner that sells logs from time to time, I feel like I have been getting screwed for the last 22 years." This had nothing to do with hiring custom sawing services.

[GAB]

Gab,   Absolutely no offense taken, but im not sure what i was supposed to learn on the experiment.  My question was more geared toward the overrun of doyle scale on the size of the logs pictured

It is a way of seeing, with actual numbers, what MM was saying in reply #3.
For example:
Dia. x length    Int'l 1/4"    Doyle     Scribner
6"  x   10'           10            3             10
12" x 10"            55           40            50
18" x 10'           140         123          130
24" x 10'           255         250          250
30" x 10'           410         423          410

Hope this helps.
Gerald             

[Dave Shepard]

I had a logger tell me once that Doyle was a thief. I don't know about Doyle, but he sure was. :D

[sandsawmill14]

 :D :D :D

dave we had a logger that always had one load a week that was his logs  ??? when he was on the shares the rest of the time :-\ we no longer buy from him >:(

[WV Sawmiller]

If you are hiring sawing by the board foot, you should be paying on yield, not on log scale. I've never heard of anyone charging for sawing based on log scale.

X2

[Brucer]

This might give you a different perspective on how to figure what is in the log you're buying.

Most of the traditional log scales predict how much lumber you can get from a given log. Here in BC the log scale measures the actual volume of the log (in cubic metres, inside the bark). It's up to me (the buyer) to figure out what I can recover from this.

How many BF would the traditional scales predict for the typical logs that I buy?
  - 12" top, 18" butt, 52' long.
  - 16" top, 26" butt, 52' long.

If I know the top diameter of the log, I know from experience what I can recover per cubic metre.

Follow one of the suggestions on this topic and work on paper the yield from different sized logs, using the various scales. You will pretty soon get a feel for what you can expect from each size log using the different scales.

One point that I don't think was mentioned -- only I know what sort of materials I can sell. I could get a higher recovery if I could sell very small material such as short 1x2's and 2x2's. But there just isn't the demand around here to make it worth my while.

[sandsawmill14]

12'' top would be around 310  16" top would be around 625  doyle at least at my mill but that is probably about  20-30% over actual doyle as i dont cut logs that long

[GeneWengert-WoodDoc]

The Scribner data above all ends in zero, so often the scale numbers are changed to Scribner Decimal C by dropping the last zero.  So, the numbers in the example would be 1, 5, 13, 25, 41.  Sometimes the other scales are also given to the 10 BF.  The International 1/4 (so called because it uses a 1/4" kerf and exactly 1" thick lumber) in the example is rounded to the closest 5 BF.

The US Forest Service scaling handbook also has rules for deducting footage because of various defects, such as rot, sweep, seams, etc.

So, if we have three logs each scaling 100 BF on the Int 1/4, how long would it take to saw them?  Then how long would it take to saw one log scaling 300 BF?  So, to account for the extra handling and slower sawing, the Doyle and Scribner penalize the footage amount.  With Int 1/4, you would have a different price for different sizes to make sure that the cost of logs per BF of lumber produced would be the same.

With the accuracy of measurement possible today, why don,t we buy based on 1/10" diameters?  That is, why pay for 12.5" to 13.5" logs all the same?  Why not have a scale that gives volumes every 1/10"?

You can even argue about having hardwoods tallied to the closest board foot without fractions.

Bottom line is that historical procedures seem to work well.

[Dave H.]

when sawing someone elses logs these scales  give you an esitimate as to minimum pricing, but tell them it may  be more based on actual yeilding.

[Brucer]

12'' top would be around 310  16" top would be around 625  doyle at least at my mill but that is probably about  20-30% over actual doyle as i dont cut logs that long

From my example ...

12" top, 18" butt, 52' long = 1.80 m³ . I can expect about 285 BF/m³ averaged over the whole log, so 513 BF. That's 65% over your Doyle calculation.

16" top, 16" butt, 52' long = 3.78 m³. At that size I'll be getting 300 BF/m³, so 1134 BF. 85% over your Doyle calculation.

The point is not that one system is better than the other. The point is that you need to learn what your actual recovery will be versus the scale that's being used. This will vary according to the size of the log.

[Kbeitz]

With all the smart minds on this forum I think it's time to make history.
Some one here needs to come up with a forth scale thats up to date and works
with the thin kerf saw mill.
The forestry forum universal bandsaw log scale.

I'm just babbling again...

[Chuck White]

I never saw based on what the logs scale out to!

I only scale logs to give the customer some idea ahead of time, of what his sawbill will total!

I charge on actual lumber sawed!

Everything gets added up at the end of each day!

[Peter Drouin]

Most times it is how good you are sawing the log up and not leaving lumber in the slab.

[CJennings]

The Doyle scale is not an accurate scale if you want to know the volume of the log you are selling to a mill (or anyone else). It as devised for early, relatively crude mills with thick saw kerf that did not like to saw small logs. Most trees being cut and sold today are not 24-40 inches in diameter. So yes, if you use Doyle scale to sell your logs and you are not getting paid a premium to make up for the inaccuracies of the scale, you are getting screwed. Now many loggers and mills do pay more when using Doyle so it may not be too far off but you need to figure that out on a case by case basis. My forest mensuration professor railed against these inaccurate scales. International 1/4" is probably the best of them but truly accurate estimations of volume would use more than one diameter measurement for each log, cubic inches not board feet estimates, and some math that probably most loggers and mills don't want to mess with.

There are more than just the three scales mentioned. There are many old scales that are typically state or locale specific, like the Vermont scale and so forth. Which are rarely used, if at all anymore.

[drobertson]

Road Monkey has asked a pretty good question, and for the most part it has been answered by a few.  I too run into this very similar situation, where a land owner has a given project, and has figured the estimated lumber required, and hopefully added the at least 10% extra, then proceeds to the timber to fetch some logs.  He scales the logs with whatever scale, then feels like he has met the bill. Now I've never heard anyone complain about getting more out of their logs, and don't think he was, but this type of over run is a bit on the excessive side. The scale had to be off, or the lumber sawn below nominal.  20% is a good overrun, 40% if the logs are perfect and the lumber is sawn nominal.
Now comes the kicker,, how was the tally handled?  nominal lumber 1-1/2" x 3-1/2"  tallied as a 2x4? you can see where the overrun will increase if so.  Many folks say they don't sell air,  so I'm just saying it's how the lumber is tallied as well as how good the log was scaled, and sawn, 

[Dave Shepard]

Some log scales may be cheap on volume in small logs, but a small log is also hard to make good lumber and production from, so the small logs aren't worth as much. If logs were traded on absolute volume like brucer does, then I would want to see a varying pay scale based on the diameters of the logs. A 9" log doesn't have much good wood in it when you take into consideration that the center of most logs goes to a lower grade use.

[landscraper]

How many highly valuable jellybeans are there in that jar? 800 you say?  I'll take them all and give you $0.01 each.  Oh wait, now you say there's 1,000 jellybeans?  Well in that case I'll still take them all and give you $0.008 each.   Once I buy your jar I'm going to empty it into my expensive jelly bean counting machine and sell them for $0.02 each, and I'm hoping there's more than 800 or 1,000 in there.  If you bring me any funny shaped jars or any beans that are hard to empty into my machine I am going to lower my price per bean. 

This crude analogy brought to you by the proud owner of a Beanmizer LT35.  You ought to see my entry into the personal beanst best.

[dgdrls]

http://www.roundwood-measure.com/case_for_cubic.pdf

http://www.roundwood-measure.com/

the roundwood link has a link to the USFS

lots of good info to mash around.

Road Monkey, also check the NYSDEC for their Stumpage reports if you have not already,
P.S.  that's a Dandy Cabin.

Dan

[Dave Shepard]

Some log scales may be cheap on volume in small logs, but a small log is also hard to make good lumber and production from, so the small logs aren't worth as much. If logs were traded on absolute volume like brucer does, then I would want to see a varying pay scale based on the diameters of the logs. A 9" log doesn't have much good wood in it when you take into consideration that the center of most logs goes to a lower grade use.

In thinking about this a little more while digging out my third set of posted sign nails this morning, I realized that I was thinking more from a softwood perspective. Hardwood grading already allows for a reduction in value based on size. At least one log buyer I know of has a 12"x12' break for value on white pine as well.

[sandsawmill14]

this is a very good ( and civil  smiley_clapping ) discussion on a good topic. but the bottom line is we are all pretty much stuck with the predominate scale for our area if we use any sort of commercial aspect of the industry whether its the loggers or the big mills   far as the logs brucer listed they would be cut into 5 8'9" logs and the top log what ever was left ( if it was hardwood) as it would be the lowest grade if it was pine it would be cut into 2 16' s a 12' and a 8' log  and the numbers i gave were a guess  as i would not have scaled until it was cut to length and doyle seems to hurt the logger on extremely long length logs if i were sawing them at that length i would scale at that length but other wise i wait till they are cut up. 10" and under i will overrun 75-80%  up to 14" about 50%   and about 20-30% on 16" and up depending on the log. the thing is in 8-12" logs 10' long i can only saw about 2000 bdft a day in 16" plus i can cut 3500 or more so why should i pay the same for the poles as for saw logs ??? the problem is 95% of timber is sold by the ton down here so no way to grade the logs and the logger will put everything on the truck now i had 3 logs last week that would have sawed in half about 6' they were so crooked if i had sawed them instead of burning them in the slab pile and the number of hollow logs is unbelievable but by the ton we buy everything they bring (but we have told them we would send the next load back if it looked like that ;D )where if it was by the 1000 they would leave the worthless logs in the woods like they did 25 yrs ago. you just have to figure out what works for you and the logger

[Tom the Sawyer]

When I read the original post I, too, thought the numbers must be off.  Drobertson may have hit on why.  Sometimes, I will cut very thin stuff and, if I counted less than 1" as 4/4, then I might be able to get those numbers - for me, 1/4 is 1/4.  Without exact numbers it is hard to fathom that much overrun.

Around here, Doyle is the standard and I explain it to guys I buy logs from, and give them a scale card.  It does penalize small logs and I explain how much extra time they take for the yield.  I discourage them from bringing small logs, I really don't want 10" logs anyway.  If they bring them along with larger sizes, I'll take them but they really aren't worth much. 

You can always just specify a minimum diameter and reject the smaller ones.  There is a small firewood market too, does the Doyle 'penalty' make them worth less than firewood?  My normal buy is 200-800 bf, not thousands (primarily from tree services).

Kbeitz,  There is a publication out there (USFS?) that discusses about 20 log scales.  If you can find a copy of the International 1/8" scale, you'll find it to be pretty accurate for bandsaw mills.  Unfortunately, the smart phone apps and on-line tools don't usually include it (most have Scribner, International 1/4" and Doyle). 

I'll use International 1/4" as a baseline for milling estimates, because that is the closest one available on my apps, and it is on the back of my card.  I'll also point out that I may get more from the logs since the narrow kerf of a bandsaw makes less waste, that if they want thicker dimensions there will be fewer kerfs (more yield), and live-edges will also have less waste (more yield).  I very rarely mill dimension lumber.  I primarily mill for woodworkers, most common requests are for 5/4 and 8/4 with live edges. 

[ladylake]

 

Are you sure you scaled those logs right, those logs sure look like a lot more than 39bf average on any scale.  Steve

[sandsawmill14]

and to add to toms remarks to the best of my knowledge all of the commercial scales are based on 4/4 lumber + 1/8 oversize (4/4=1 1/8 ) so if sawing cants or even 8/4 (2 1/8). so it will give you much more over run when sawing true 4/4 or 8/4 with a band mill than you will get with if sawing commercial lumber with a 1/4 kerf.  also as tom said i dont want small logs and i would pay $100 a 1000 more if i could get nothing under 16"  the labor would more than pay the difference

[road_monkey]

the picture may be deceiving as to the size of the logs. I loaded them with all the big ends to the front of the wagon.  for comparison, the left front rim on the wagon is 14", now compare that to the big end of the logs, keeping in mind that the small ends are going to be probably 3-4" smaller.   

drobertson, all theses were sawed into 1" boards, 4",6",8"10"




 

[customsawyer]

I have seen some sawyers cut 1" boards at 7/8". They move the saw head down 1" but this makes the kerf come out of the board instead of the log. It will gain you a few boards per log.  ;) I am not saying you are wrong just trying to understand the amount of extra lumber you say you got above the scale.

[sandsawmill14]

road monkey how long were those logs ???

[road_monkey]

They were all 12' except 1 8 footer

[Hackermatack]

Just as a point of interest that really has nothing to do with the original question. A few log yards and mills around here buy softwood saw logs by weight. The predominate species are white spruce and balsam fir. Fir far outweighs spruce so if the load is all of one species they have the conversion for pounds/bd. ft. if it is a mixed load they take a guess at the % of each. When unloading the loader operator will put any reject logs back on the truck so they are subtracted from the gross wt when the truck is weighed on the way out. Most loggers & truckers seem to be happy with this method and most yards buying this way will stick scale on request so if a load comes in that is not fresh cut and has dried a little the logger is paid fairly. One big advantage for the truckers is that time spent in the yard is cut considerably and they can move more loads/day. Hard to say if this method is fair but it does treat all size logs equally.

[drobertson]

Yea, I don't know, I was not trying to say anyone did any thing deceitful or dumb for sure, I just have never, never seen double the log scale when sawing to the number.  Those logs did look nice, and seemingly straight,,, either way, looks like a good whack,

[sandsawmill14]

i suspect the talley is off on one side or the other as a 14" log 12' long has 75 bdft doyle in it and it would take 25-26 layers 42" wide to make roughly the 1100 or so bdft ( block talley) but i didnt see the logs or the lumber (good pics but you cant scale it ;D ) please dont think i am critical but it just dont look right from here  ;)

[road_monkey]

15 layers visible, 8 footers are under the tarp.  wagon is 6' inside the bunks. stacked as tight as I could get it,each layer contains roughly 72 sq ft. (6x12) so we are up to roughly 1080 feet not counting the half row, or the 8 footers. any thoughts?



 

[sandsawmill14]

rod monkey your math is right on the lumber  any chance you could have read the 10' mark instead of the 12' on the scale ??? if not you need to go to buying logs and letting that guy saw them ;D :D :D you will make some $$$ ;D

[Alligator]

The reason: Doyle scale was not design to scale 10 or 15 perfect straight selected under 20" logs. It was designed to scale millions of  BDFT of logs in a fairly rapid fashion without a great amount of examination, as to straightness or quality. I scaled millions of BDFT of logs over 15 years. I had to segregate and saw individual loads from different tracts, and check them thru the mill. Doyle scale gives an average of about 40% overcut on a circle mill with a sash gang saw in widely mixed 8" to 36" logs. Even that goes down if you get into timber that has damage like hidden turpentine metal, logs from behind a firing range, wind / fire damage, insect damage. When you scale 10 to 20 loads 2k to 4k a load a day you can't inspect every logs quality. The Doyle scale compensates for that.

Just what I was taught. I was never designed for small amounts of hand picked logs.

[SawyerBrown]

If you are hiring sawing by the board foot, you should be paying on yield, not on log scale. I've never heard of anyone charging for sawing based on log scale.

X2

Well, I do (International 1/4").  I started counting and measuring boards, but switched after about a year.

Here's my thought on that:
  - If the logs are good and solid (and straight!), I'm willing to provide an extra 10-15% product to save the hassle of counting boards at the end of the day
  - I can give a very accurate estimate, even over the phone, if the customer can give me the measurements
  - If the log is NOT solid, as happens so often with red oak around here for example, I get paid for sawing whether he gets that much lumber or not!  (That's probably the main reason).

Buying logs is a whole different animal, obviously ...

[ladylake]

15 layers visible, 8 footers are under the tarp.  wagon is 6' inside the bunks. stacked as tight as I could get it,each layer contains roughly 72 sq ft. (6x12) so we are up to roughly 1080 feet not counting the half row, or the 8 footers. any thoughts?



 

The bf looks right, don't drape that tarp over the edge of the stack as it will mold with no air flow.  Steve

[Chuck White]

15 layers visible, 8 footers are under the tarp.  wagon is 6' inside the bunks. stacked as tight as I could get it,each layer contains roughly 72 sq ft. (6x12) so we are up to roughly 1080 feet not counting the half row, or the 8 footers. any thoughts?

I don't think that 6' inside the bunks is correct, most running gear is set up at 4' between the bunks.

Most likely the distance between the inside edges of the tires is 6'.

Not wanting to step on toes, just sayin'.

[hacknchop]

Please try to remember that log rules were set up long before portable bandsaws they provide an acurate standard of volume for which they were designed logs that is, not lumber but rather logs the mills needed. One also needs to take into consideration the amount of low grade or pallet lumber that mills sell at a price far below price per ft paid for logs.
Today the industry has changed mills now have a markets for by-products that did not exist then.

[road_monkey]

Chuck white, the log bunks are 6' wide to the inside of them.  I know, i built it

[Chuck White]

OK, if I was wrong, so be it!

I just know the wagons that look like that in this area are as I described.

Yours must be around 9' from the outside of one tire to the outside of the other!

Most places would be illegal to run them on the public roads!

EDIT:  Going back through this post, the pic in post 48, I agree would likely be 6', but that pic looks different than the pic in post 55!

What I was referring to as "bunks" was just above the axle in post 55, where the green goes across what looks like 4'!

If I stepped on your toes, it wasn't intentional!   

[GAB]

Chuck I think you are talking about the bunks that keep the wagon rack from sliding off of the wagon frame and R M is talking about the bunks that hold the load from sliding off of the wagon bed or rack.
You may correct me if I's wrong again.
Gerald

[Chuck White]

Yup, you're right Gerald!

I looked back through the posts and saw the 2 pics and realized we were talking about 2 different issues!

That's when I went back and edited my last post and even added    the peace sign!

[GeneWengert-WoodDoc]

Do you want to know the truth about the origin of log rules, such as....that most use 1" and not thicker lumber, that Doyle had a pocket guide in 1825, that many use no taper logs, etc.?  Then go to
http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/fplgtr/fplgtr01.pdf

This publication also has some graphs to illustrate the rules.

Need a rule for thin saws?  Check out the International 1/8.

This publications has many rules expressed in a formula.

Appreciate that small logs were seldom sawn prior to WW II, so problems with scaling small logs were not an issue.

[sandsawmill14]

and until people start waiting and cutting sawlogs instead of heavy pulp the problem with the scales will remain