(Gränsfors) Why the axe handle of model wildlife is thinner than model hand?

D

Dextar

Joined
Sep 14, 2017
Messages
628
Any reason design like this? Maybe because of actual use scenario?
Left-side Product Model: Hand Hatchet
Right-side Product Model: Wildlife Hatchet

axes.jpg
 
Last edited:
Thinner is generally better. The whippiness of wood disperses the shock of the blows, resulting in less damage to the handle over time and making it more likely to bend rather than break, as well as saving your hands from the impacts. However the handle on the right still looks quite thick all things considered.
 
FortyTwoBlades said:
Thinner is generally better. The whippiness of wood disperses the shock of the blows, resulting in less damage to the handle over time and making it more likely to bend rather than break, as well as saving your hands from the impacts. However the handle on the right still looks quite thick all things considered.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the answer!
 
Counter intuitive but thinner in that direction will actually make the handle stiffer, much like a popsicle stick.
On the other hand nothing is to be gained by making the handle wider than the eye in the neck like the first haft.

There is a balance that a nice oval shape produces so don't make a handle to skinny.
 
garry3 said:
Counter intuitive but thinner in that direction will actually make the handle stiffer, much like a popsicle stick.
On the other hand nothing is to be gained by making the handle wider than the eye in the neck like the first haft.

There is a balance that a nice oval shape produces so don't make a handle to skinny.
Click to expand...
Thinner reduces rigidity, but reducing the lateral rigidity is the point. It remains stiff front-to-back but is able to flex more laterally to disperse shock. Rigidity scales cubically with changes in thickness resisting the vector of force. So a small increase or decrease in thickness directly opposing a force makes for a massive change in rigidity. So a ruler flat on a table hanging of the edge of a table will be floppy if you push on the end, and making it wider only increases resistance linearly since it's adding material parallel to the force vector. But if you make the ruler just a little bit thicker, it will be MUCH stiffer at equal width than the thinner one was.
 
FortyTwoBlades said:
Thinner reduces rigidity, but reducing the lateral rigidity is the point. It remains stiff front-to-back but is able to flex more laterally to disperse shock. Rigidity scales cubically with changes in thickness resisting the vector of force. So a small increase or decrease in thickness directly opposing a force makes for a massive change in rigidity. So a ruler flat on a table hanging of the edge of a table will be floppy if you push on the end, and making it wider only increases resistance linearly since it's adding material parallel to the force vector. But if you make the ruler just a little bit thicker, it will be MUCH stiffer at equal width than the thinner one was.
Click to expand...
I have no idea what you are saying, but I do know a skinny haft will have hand shock and be whippy laterally at the same time, it's an awful haft.

I also know that if I double the depth of a beam I have increased it's load carrying by eight times whereas if I double the width I have only increased it's by double.

Maybe that's what you are saying, I don't know....
 
garry3 said:
I also know that if I double the depth of a beam I have increased it's load carrying by eight times whereas if I double the width I have only increased it's by double.
Click to expand...

Yes, this is what I'm saying. Changes in thickness resisting the direction the force is coming from have a cubic scaling effect. And it's why basically all vintage handles for any tools have a thin zone in them between where the head is mounted and the primary gripped portion.

Reducing the lateral dimension will not make it stiffer.
 
FortyTwoBlades said:
Yes, this is what I'm saying. Changes in thickness resisting the direction the force is coming from have a cubic scaling effect. And it's why basically all vintage handles for any tools have a thin zone in them between where the head is mounted and the primary gripped portion.

Reducing the lateral dimension will not make it stiffer.
Click to expand...
I wish you luck should you ever try some wood bending experiments.
 
garry3 said:
I wish you luck should you ever try some wood bending experiments.
Click to expand...
I'm in the midst of a bunch of them, actually. But you're likely confusing rigidity for the introduction of instability and side loads. Those are completely different from stiffness and have more to do with changes in the direction of force.

The simple fact is that making it thinner in that plane does not increase rigidity, full stop. It just doesn't.
 
FortyTwoBlades said:
I'm in the midst of a bunch of them, actually. But you're likely confusing rigidity for the introduction of instability and side loads. Those are completely different from stiffness and have more to do with changes in the direction of force.

The simple fact is that making it thinner in that plane does not increase rigidity, full stop. It just doesn't.
Click to expand...
I'm not the one that is confused.
 
OP, If you're referring to the "hand" model, it's because thickness doesn't matter as much when the handle is that short. It's bombproof so that it doesn't break, that's it.
 
garry3 said:
No.

Gain some knowledge, experience, and figure it out on your own.
Click to expand...
This is frankly a petulant and ridiculous response. You made the claim. The burden of proof is on you. It's okay to admit to being wrong. I have done it here in this very forum plenty of times as I've learned from our fellow members. If you can find me one engineering source backing your claim I'll concede freely that you were correct. But I find it vanishingly unlikely in this case. Making a thing thinner is not going to increase its rigidity. That's simply not how it works.

Something like an I-beam maximizes rigidity for its weight by distributing as much of its material in opposition to the relevant vectors of force it experiences as possible. Similarly, bayonets were made in a hollowed triangular section specifically because it similarly maximized rigidity for the weight, as was also done with thrusting-exclusive smallswords of the time. But if you were to take an I-beam and fill in the rectangle it describes it would be stiffer -- just also a LOT heavier.
 
I'm not an expert, but it makes sense to me that having something that is thin side to side yet thick enough front to back would yield a tool that stays Ridgid when striking head on but would allow for more flexibility when glancing or striking at an angle. Like I could see having some flex being a good thing as you swung upward at a 45 or something.
 
Basically shock dissipation is translating the force into motion so it isn't transmitted to the hands. When a striking tool impacts the target, not all of the force is perfectly up and down, no matter how well you swing, and is translated into side loads and the wobble or vibration of the thin portion is what dampens the shock. This is why deadblow hammers behave the way they do--the metal pellets inside the head canister are freely able to move to eliminate the shock, turning that force into motion. In swung tools it's basically intentional buckling and taking advantage of the elasticity of the handle material to allow it to regain its shape. You can find videos of construction workers in China that use an almost noodle-like flexible cable or polymer handle with sledge hammers because those tools are less alignment-dependent as something like an axe and tension of the centripetal force holds the floppy handle relatively straight during the stroke. The handle then is so free to vibrate that it completely eliminates the shock, and virtually nothing is felt by the hands. In the case of axes you want it stiff enough not to flop in use, but thin enough to flex on impact rather than translate the force to the hands. This is why you find so many axe enthusiasts waxing philosophic about the trend over time of axe handle manufacturers making thicker and thicker handles, while older axes were commonly outfitted with quite slender ones.

Edit to add: The late Peter Vido had a nice little overview on the topic of handle trends here.
 
Dextar said:
Any reason design like this? Maybe because of actual use scenario?
Click to expand...

From their website:

"The distinguishing feature of the Gränsfors Hand Hatchet is its short handle relative to the size of its head. It is extremely practical to carry . . . as it takes up very little space. "

"The Gränsfors Wildlife Hatchet . . . with the same head as the Hand Hatchet but on a longer handle. This longer handle lends the axe more power, not least when felling trees. "

www.gransforsbruk.com

Gränsfors Bruk Sweden | Handmade axes since 1902

Gränsfors Bruk, Axe production in Sweden, CSR, Agenda 2030…
www.gransforsbruk.com www.gransforsbruk.com


I have "regular" and short handled hatchets. When carving, I have a preference for a short thicker handle. I like to grip up just under the head and the thicker handle feels better to me for that. I have a couple set up for this.

AytLKIA.jpeg

ezREoSu.jpeg





Bob
 
An interesting discussion. My field is metal, not wood, but I'm in agreement that removing material does not and cannot increase rigidity. However, anecdotally, I blame the firearm manufacturers and more specifically, the barrel makers, for creating a population that is absolutely convinced that cutting flutes in a barrel and creating ribs makes the barrel stiffer! I've heard this ad nauseum and find it impossible to convince an uneducated public otherwise. Of course, it DOES make the barrel stiffer than a barrel of THE SAME WEIGHT with a smaller diameter, which has already been noted in this thread.

More important, and well known to anyone on this forum, is the direction of the grain in relation to the head, the type of wood, how it was cured, etc. These factors are critical to the strength of an axe or hatchet handle, but I'm preaching to the choir and a far more knowledgeable group than me.
 
garry3 said:
Counter intuitive but thinner in that direction will actually make the handle stiffer, much like a popsicle stick.
On the other hand nothing is to be gained by making the handle wider than the eye in the neck like the first haft.

There is a balance that a nice oval shape produces so don't make a handle to skinny.
Click to expand...
In the absolute strictest definition of stronger? No. More material is always going to resist more forces.

For a practical, usable definition of the word "stronger", yes. You can make a thing lighter and reduce the load gravity puts on it more than the loss in strength by shedding material.

A typical textbook example would be a square beam across a gap. A solid rectangular block might collapse under its own weight where a hollow one might be able to hold your weight. The solid one is technically "stronger", but the hollow one would hold more weight.



------------
Stiffer, sure, but yield strength is reduced. Think of that as the redundant strength that gets you through it but still needs to be rebuilt afterwards.

in structural engr, the structures are very overbuilt by code and by design. this is for multiple reasons, the simplest being whatever you assumed when designing, your occupants/ end users will figure out a way to exceed.

furthermore, additional bracing that is just shoved in places and not really designed in can hurt a structures ability to take load or change the way it works and prevent the design (like a crush cage) from working correctly, which could "weaken" the design. think building a custom race frame in situ and just adding extra bracing or brace panels because you think more steel = more strength.

but if you look at efficient strength, less steel might give you a more efficient design, but at the cost of ultimate strength.







But we're talking axes here, and everything FortyTwoBlades said is correct.





Try being an adult and knock off the petulance. It's a bad look.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top