Larger double bit axe.

During the hay day of logging in North America we also saw the advent of what is called scientific management. This guy named Taylor looked at how to make workers most efficient. One of the test cases was where he looked at shoveling. He found that there was an optimal weight where the scoop of a shovel would be a certain size for a certain material. To this day a spade for digging holes pretty much retains the size scoop that was optimal for dirt. Shovels all had different sizes to carry essentially the same weight of different materials, dirt, coal, iron, snow and grain for instance. So while we would export big heavy axes that were not optimized to Australia and South America here industry had arrived at around 3.5 lbs. as being the "right" size for an axe. When considering the sustained use of the tool along with the need for accuracy that size had proven itself for chopping down most trees. Deviations from this were likely axes used for jobs that were not being scrutinized for adherence to Taylor's principles, or at least that's what I'd would bet you five bucks was the case from my reading of the history of industry at the time.
 
The 3.5 pound axe was optimized when men swung an axe all day every day. Now when most of us use an axe for an hour or two on a weekend, the individual optimal size may be different. I prefer a 3 1/4 pound and I'm looking for a 3 pound double bit myself.
 
halfaxe said:
The 3.5 pound axe was optimized when men swung an axe all day every day. Now when most of us use an axe for an hour or two on a weekend, the individual optimal size may be different. I prefer a 3 1/4 pound and I'm looking for a 3 pound double bit myself.
Click to expand...

This is a much more straightforward more cogent way of saying what I was getting at.
 
As a "weekend warrior" when it comes to db felling, I can say that I prefer the ends of the spectrum- either a 4#+ or a ~2# cruiser. Don't much like 3-3^2#, just feels wimpy on a full size handle after swinging their big brothers my whole life.
My opinion might change if I could get a 3# on a 32" straight handle.
 
Liberatus1 said:
During the hay day of logging in North America we also saw the advent of what is called scientific management. This guy named Taylor looked at how to make workers most efficient. One of the test cases was where he looked at shoveling. He found that there was an optimal weight where the scoop of a shovel would be a certain size for a certain material. To this day a spade for digging holes pretty much retains the size scoop that was optimal for dirt. Shovels all had different sizes to carry essentially the same weight of different materials, dirt, coal, iron, snow and grain for instance. So while we would export big heavy axes that were not optimized to Australia and South America here industry had arrived at around 3.5 lbs. as being the "right" size for an axe. When considering the sustained use of the tool along with the need for accuracy that size had proven itself for chopping down most trees. Deviations from this were likely axes used for jobs that were not being scrutinized for adherence to Taylor's principles, or at least that's what I'd would bet you five bucks was the case from my reading of the history of industry at the time.
Click to expand...
I do recall carefully watching to see which brands/types of spade shovels the old hands chose from the tool crib during my school summer construction job days. Virtually everything on job sites was moved by hand 45 years ago. Workies knew that there was no monetary benefit in working too hard and that you had to pace yourself or you wouldn't last. Angle of the blade (relative to the handle) and shape/depth of the scallop made quite a difference in how much material could be comfortably shifted for hours on end. Obviously the boss wished for maximum amount of material per scoop, and the workers the least. Spades look to be superficially the same until you actually have to shovel gravel for days on end with one!
Only thing I do remember about all this is that forged blades were considerably more durable than pressed steel, but that pressed blades were not quite as heavy and did not carry as much.
 
halfaxe said:
The 3.5 pound axe was optimized when men swung an axe all day every day. Now when most of us use an axe for an hour or two on a weekend, the individual optimal size may be different. I prefer a 3 1/4 pound and I'm looking for a 3 pound double bit myself.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I would imagine the 3.5ers are what worked best overall, hence their wide availability.

I actually happen to have a 3-lb double bit...a permabond Plumb. It does feel a little light, but it actually has really nice balance as well. Sort of a cruiser on steroids or a "lite" version of a standard head.
 
Anyone have a racing axe and can tell what the balance is like? Any pictures I have seen look as though they would have atrocious balance (even Tuatahi), hardly any poll. They look as though they would hang towards the edge 45 degrees or more. Why would they do this?

And would there not be serious balancing issues even with a double-bit over 4 pounds (skewed towards the toe unless you lengthened the handle)?

For reference purposes (obviously not my Tuatahi, but it's a working model):
tuatahi+work+axe+review+4.JPG


In my experience the poll would have to be twice that length to even approach good balance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top