Show me your axes!

Interestingly, Australians started with axes with large polls and actually went to reduced/minimal polls.

 

Looooooooooong response warning, but I did tell you it'd take a lot of 'splainin'. The TL/DR version is "It's not inherently better or worse, just different." I'll get back on track with posting personal axe pictures after this point as I don't want to veer too far from the original spirit of the thread.

You're creating a false dichotomy for starters. Just because I am pro-Italian design methodology does not mean that I am anti-American design...I have and occasionally still use American patterns but have increasingly gone to using the Italian varieties because of their performance. Again, I shall repeat that I've had men who use an axe to put food on the table tell me how impressed they are with the chopping performance of various Italian patterns. I've had three fellows tell me now that they've sold off their Gransfors axes after getting Rinaldis.

The gooseneck shown in my diagrams is an idealized form which would be made using either steam-bent or naturally curved wood to maintain the grain throughout. That's obviously a more laborious handle to make, which is why straight handles are more commonly found, and why American axes have the eye closer to the center of gravity--it greatly simplifies the manufacture of a strong single-axis handle. However, a straight off-axis handle can still usually be used effectively so long as, when making horizontal blows, a bit of counter-leverage is applied by the top hand under the head to keep it level until sliding it down to the butt end of the hand during the stroke. At that point you've practically reverted to a single-point grip which will inherently be self-balanced because it consists of only two points (one grip point and the center of gravity) rather than three. The greater the distance the upper hand is from the axle of the lower hand, the more side-to-side force will lever the axe and cause it to twist. However, even in very deep-bitted poll-less axes with straight handles, that distance is relatively short. In the case of the Trento with a stock handle we're talking 2-1/8" off axis if aiming to have the axle run through the center of the handle, and the moment the hand begins to slide down the length of the handle this distance is diminishing. To keep the axe level you'll simply be applying a small amount of force in one direction to the back of the handle with the heel of the palm of your lower hand, and to the front of the handle with your upper one in the opposite direction. As the two points converge, the need for this two-point oppositional steering immediately reduces and becomes virtually null once the upper hand reaches the end of its slide. Since even with unified-axis handles you only have the hand at the top of the handle for a brief moment, it's very easy and natural to adjust your technique to properly compensate. Surprisingly I've had one fellow tell me he finds his Calabria axe (which has a straight handle) easier to swing straight than American axes. I'm not sure I fully agree with his assessment, but I think it may have to do with how broad the Calabria handles are.

An advantage of a deep bit is that you have better clearance and are able to cut deeper notches before risking glancing blows from the sides of the eye hitting the mouth of the notch before the bit meets wood. It also allows for the bit to stay thin to a greater depth before you have to increase the thickness of the bit to accommodate the dimensions of the eye. Additionally, it greatly reduces the chances of barking the neck of the handle against anything in use, which can happen by accident under a wide range of circumstances. It allows you to maintain a particular bit geometry with a bare minimum of weight. When combined with a thin geometry it means you're able to get penetration equal to that of a heavier, thicker axe, though you give up a certain amount of splitting or chip-popping ability in the process, so while the blows bite deeper you have to make your chips appropriately narrow for the wood you're working in to still pop them free. Lastly, having the eye at the rear of the head maximizes bit depth while minimizing the distance of the edge from the center of gravity for that depth of bit. Basically everything behind the center of gravity but in front of the eye is extra bit depth vs seating the eye at the center of gravity by subtracting from the bit and adding it to the poll. By having a very thin geometry you can then minimize over-penetration by using a wide bit that makes connecting blows across the face of a log easier vs. a narrow one, whereas a thicker head needs to be narrowed to achieve equal depth of penetration for an equally forceful blow in the same wood, which means that additional blows must be brought across the face to span the notch, introducing additional opportunities for misplaced blows. Lastly, a thin and deep bit increases the permissible thickness of limbs that can be neatly cleared with a single blow.

With the American method you can have very thin geometries as well, so that is not a feature exclusive to poll-less axes. However, for a given weight and profile you have a limit on bit depth that can force a requirement for more wedge-like shapes to prevent hitting a "wall" at the bit/eye transition that would stop the axe dead in its tracks. That thickening of the geometry enables a wider chip to be popped easily, but also forces a narrowing of the bit in order to still get good penetration. The presence of a large poll makes hard hammering or pounding of non-ferrous targets feasible (or even ferrous targets if the poll is hardened) which was useful in American industrial forestry practice since it made for two tools in one. Axes with minimal polls but a flat face like the Trento etc. can do light hammering, but you wouldn't want to do it frequently or with much intensity.

Ultimately, the human body can only generate so much force without pushing outside the aerobic zone and becoming unsustainable, so that sets the input cap for an endurance tool. Of that force you can divide it between splitting force, penetration depth, and width of the cut. The softer the wood, the easier the penetration and so you can make the head wider and/or thicker until your blows aren't over-penetrating while delivering blows of a frequency and intensity that keeps you at the peak of the aerobic zone. With hardwoods you must make the bit narrower and/or thinner in order to keep penetration at its optimum level for the same input. Remember that any time the head is applying splitting force to the wood without actually breaking the bond of the fibers is wasted energy, and so that's where managing the diameter of your chips comes into play. If you have more splitting force and less penetration, make your chips wide so that even though they're shallow you're not wasting energy. If you have more penetration than splitting force, make sure your chips are narrow enough to still clear effectively.

I just happen to prefer the deep, thin bit/light total head weight approach as it allows me to save energy in all the moments of the stroke in which the head is not actively delivering its momentum to the wood. In cases where even a broad bit is insufficient to prevent over-penetration when in the peak aerobic zone I just take lighter swings and still get the job done almost as fast and feeling a lot more well-rested at the end of the affair, which is handy since I do so much of my work manually. Ideally, one would be able to have exactly the right balance of those three factors for every individual tree one stumbled across. Realistically one has to strike a prioritized balance instead to optimize the design for the weighted average circumstances they are facing, and so that's part of the reason for the wide array of regional patterns in all axe-using nations on the planet. There's also more than one way to accomplish a task at a given level of efficiency, so oftentimes people in different geographic regions will draw from their local "school of design principles" in order to accomplish task or range of tasks with a tool that looks drastically different from what another fellow is using someplace else.

 

Actually, history is in direct alignment with all of the concepts I've presented. You'll notice the spatial and angular relationships between the bit, eye, and grip point follow the same principles across all styles of axes throughout history from the first hafted axes onward to the present day. You're repeating lore rather than fact. If anything, thinner bits are better for hardwoods, which contradicts your assertion. There isn't a single instance of wobble in the videos I posted. The only swing I misplaced wasn't a result of wobble, just a poor stroke because the footing in that area was really awful under the snow--it was a bunch of piled old branches and logs, which is also why the tripod tipped at one point.

Here's a Cadore pattern (also practically poll-less and thin-bitted) chopping through a half-dry beech. It was stripped bare by a porcupine and then sat in direct summer sun the whole season. I kept getting attacked by swarms of biting gnats so when you see me stopping at a couple of points I'm trying to swat them away from me.



And just for good measure, here's a Calabria pattern on more pine.



You do realize you aren't going to experience any wobble during bucking even with a straight off-axis handle, right? You're making downward strokes, which is where the bit would want to travel anyhow...

As far as offset necks not holding up and being absurd, Welsh miners certainly didn't think so...and they used polled axes, no less! Or do you think they didn't use their axes...?









Your failure to understand does not render my assertions invalid. Again, feel free to pay me a visit and you can actually experience what you are so blindly trying to level criticism against. You very clearly have no experience with actually using these sorts of axes...can you actually point out where wobble was problematic or even present in any meaningful way? How are my assertions in any way against what the historical record indicates? Please give examples and your specific reasoning. In what manner are the axes depicted poor performers? I'd be happy to do a chopping comparison with you, but I'd like you to also put in a round using one of these axes in the prescribed method after getting a few practice swings in to adjust to the feel. I have a slew of individuals who can attest to their effectiveness from first hand experience, and many of them are very accomplished with their axe skills. I have yet to hear from a single individual that they considered their Italian axe a poor performer.

 

For something a little different, here'a a 79 year old man using a poll-less Basque axe to do an underhand chop on beech.



Craig Roost felling with a short-handled Basque axe.

 

Actually, poll-less axes are used extensively in the Basque region of Spain and they have a fairly extreme traditional version of racing there, and axes with minimal polls are used in Australia and were the preferred style, as I already demonstrated. They are also still used in France, Portugal, greater Spain, throughout all of Latin America...and all both are and were used heavily for real work. Latin America is where the hardest woods in the world come from, by the way. Now demonstrate with specific citations how this is counter to history? You keep saying this over and over again, without evidence. You say that the American axe came to be because poll-less axes weren't up to the job and was imbalanced, but you're parroting lore of the American axe without actually demonstrating evidence of imbalance, while I've carefully and extensively explained the physics of how they can and do balance. I have zero problem holding any of those axes horizontal with either one or two hands.

That Cadore pattern axe is poll-less by your standards...the Trento has about 1/4" of steel at the poll and the Cadore has 3/8". As far as goosenecks go, check out the offset on the bottom one here that I already posted...I assure Eric uses his axes and uses them hard. Welsh miners did not do felling and bucking work, but they DID beat the hell out of their tools, which is what matters to your argument in this case. Their axes, like the axes of all miners, were used for driving in support beams and shaping them for fit.

Where in Maine are you? And do bring a vintage axe. Bring whatever axe you want, so long as the weight is not in excess of mine. For comparative purposes the head weights must be roughly equal, for of course a heavier head will always cut faster, though at greater outlay of energy.

 

We'll make it a party! If it's down my way then it wouldn't be outrageously far for you from NJ--we're close to the state border now.

 

You very clearly didn't understand what I wrote then...indeed, it was still balanced when half the head was lopped off but what it changed was the natural presentation of the tool in use. The tool rebalanced itself around its new center of gravity, which would then effectively open the presentation of the face, and bringing the handle off axis. To correct for that change (in presentation caused by the change in balance, not a state of imbalance) a curve in the neck of the handle returned the handle to being a long a unified axis, and the angle of the face was closed to restore it to its proper presentation. The problem was not one of balance, but of presentation that was altered by a change in the mass distribution. Throw a body of any shape into space and it will freely rotate around its center of gravity, regardless of how it is shaped. A tool only becomes imbalanced when you have rotational forces around an axle that does not run through the center of gravity.

Forgive me for not making the "ceteris paribus" qualifier, but I thought it obvious. If all else is held equal then the heavier axe will always cut faster. If you were somehow able to increase the head weight without altering the geometry, hardness, etc. of the axe--say some sort of material that behaves exactly the same as steel except it is twice as heavy, then that heavier axe will out-cut the lighter one, but more energy will be required in the lifting and swinging.

It was actually about the same diameter.

Actually the thinner geometry enabled me to take narrower notches. It wasn't a problem of not being able to hold it at an angle--you're pulling that one out of the air, and if you had any experience in using these axes you wouldn't make such absurd and baseless claims.

Frozen pine is notoriously hard compared to thawed, and frozen pine knots have taken half-dollar chips out of the edge of many an axe. Surely you know this. I did not expend a lot of energy...how would you even be able to tell this from watching a video vs. actual experience in use...? In what way was his axe an outright superior design? Superior for what? In what respects? You continue to make vague, non-specific claims. I was using an axe with a head weighing only 2.86lb and chopping frozen wood that had an unsupported end that absorbed a portion of the blow. Have a video of your own chopping?

Yes, that's abundantly clear...

The only things I'm saying they're wrong about are blaming poll-less axes for being ineffective or out of balance when they can be made to mimic American bit profiles (the Basque axes are very similar to American Connecticuts, including having a high centerline) or can have the handle brought onto a unified axis...and that even off-axis handles are generally not problematic on head patterns that traditionally have them because the twisting force on the hands is both minimal (easily compensated for in the grip) and that twisting force is only even present when the upper hand is right under the head. As soon as you make the slide of the upper hand, it's gone. Furthermore, it's an oversimplification to say that a poll is for balance. It's a simpler thing to say, but not really accurate. The job of a poll is to make the manufacture of a unified-axis handle easier, whether by hand or in a factory setting, and to add pounding capability to the axe. Again, you haven't ever tried one and yet you're trying to lecture me on how they behave...

The overwhelming majority of them didn't much care enough to think long on the design aspect of it and were at the whim of manufacturers as a result. As long as it worked and it would take and hold an edge they were happy enough. It was only a handful of more savvy users and manufacturers together that drove the development of new patterns, and they built their designs off of the contemporary method of manufacture and design rather than starting from the ground up. As such it's more of a slow evolutionary process and where you have divergent evolutionary paths you don't see one path suddenly jump the tracks and take on elements of a divergent style, because a tool is more than just the sum of its parts. They all work synergistically to complement the other features. You can find thick axes, thin axes, deep axes, shallow axes, broad axes and narrow axes within both schools of design, yet they all look different from one another because of the way they've been optimized for their respective regions' needs and preferences. You'll notice that early American polled axes actually had a much larger poll than is found today. They actually swung back to a somewhat smaller one on all but models like rafting/construction axes that were used for pounding.

They actually have a very minimal poll to the point of being nearly non-existent and the poll is nowhere near equal mass of the bit...you'll notice that the handles both on Australian/Tasmanian and racing axes have offset necks because of this...

You're not understanding what I've written, it seems. My paper consists of the very claims that I'm making. If you can't see that then I'm not sure what it would take for you to understand...I don't think there can be any further meaningful discussion until you've had a chance to hold and use the axes in question here.

So when is this happening? Where are you in Maine? I already asked this, and got no response. I'm in Shapleigh, 04076. Not much on my new property to chop besides red and white pines. There's some white oaks but they're all small young growth and I don't really need to drop any of the larger trees of either sort at the moment. But if you know where there's some wood to cut, let's do it up.[/QUOTE]

 

And yes, Cook was wrong about a number of his claims. However, he deserves credit as the only other person I've seen actively attempt to describe the phenomenon that I've been discussing. He just had a limited range of experience and information to draw from when making his assessments, and so he makes a few false attributions to the dynamics he's describing and draws incorrect conclusions as a result. But he got a lot closer than most folks did at describing it from a technical perspective. That being said, countless individuals throughout history have instinctively or intuitively understood these dynamics on a non-technical "gut" level because it's much easier to feel than describe or quantify conceptually. This is reflected in axe designs throughout history and across cultures. The largest reason for American pattern axes for spreading in use as far and wide as they did can largely be attributed to two things: the power of American capitalism and, above all else, hickory. Hickory is such an overwhelmingly superior wood to all others for axe handles that once American companies switched from exporting heads alone to foreign nations and began shipping them with hickory handles, their popularity surged to the point that the heads, which had previously sold reasonably well but not so well as to have the actual American patterns gain much traction, became ingrained in the public consciousness in those nations.