Old vs. New Axe Comparison-Convexed Cheek Design Part 2
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 окт 2024
- As you saw in Par 1 of the video, I compared an axe with convexed cheeks to one with flat cheeks (heel to toe) to see if one stuck in the wood more than the other. I did the test in oak, and noticed no difference. It is possible that with softer, or green wood, the results would be different. Here I attempt to test those other variables. For more information you can check out my blog at www.woodtrekker.com/blogspot.com.
Subtle differences in design that wouldn,t be noticed in a short test can become glaring over time. sometimes downright frustrating after just a couple of hours. Fifty swings doesn't tell you anything.
this really should have been done on green wood. Axes with convex cheeks from heel to toe have been designed NOT to stick in green wood. Green wood is primarily the target wood for axes - felled, bucked, processed etc to the desired rough shape/size for intended final use while still green. Dry wood eliminates most of the advantage of convex cheeks so you will end up with very similar results if not actually favouring flat grind due to the better penetration. Convex cheeks make better chips in green wood, making better progress through the wood, dry wood chips about as well with convex or flat grind.
Yes, it's exactly the same.
I grow up in the Maine woods. Old axes were really sought after, and never parted with. A good felling axe is double sided and has a hump in it a couple inches behind the edge. The point is not whether they stick, it's whether you can get them out when they do. The difference is huge. A general purpose camping axe can be used as a hammer, but is as useful to a woodsman as it is to a carpenter.
Nice bit of investigation. First time I've heard the phrase 'statistically significant' used in the context of outdoors equipment. Made me smile.
I look forward to your test with more swings. 50 is what I can do without letting fatigue influence the results. If you can swing an axe non stop for several hours, more power to you! As far as this test, there was no significant difference. Multiply this non significant difference by whatever factor you like.
great test really. the only inconsistancy I saw was that you always led off with the older fat cheeked axe. altho the video had a gap and I assume you waited until you rested before starting the second portion. personally, I have only 1950 and older axes in my possession. Except for the new boys axe I bought and customized to be a field gamesman axe by rounding the poll
@BornRandy62 I did wait a bit to recover. The reason why I always started with the older axe is because it was the one expected to do better, and I didn't want people saying it didn't because I was tired.
I think the first cut made the tree to bouncy to make a good comparison.
But keep up the vids... I enjoy them much. I like being in the woods to. Its the only time I feel free from nonsense.
In this test they were both equally easy to withdraw. I didn't detect any measurable difference.
I'm not sure what point you are making about single bit axes.
@bryphi77 Thanks. Check out the second part of the video. I repeat the test on another tree.
Another great video sir.
@xSluggySlugworthx Thank you.
@pabushcraft Thanks a lot.
@anachronisticon LOL.
Thanks guys.
would like to have seen some splitting. i think that's where the cheeks make a difference.
Since these boys axes tend to be the "if you only had one axe" choice, i think a splitting comparison is in order. Use sweetgum if you have access to it.