Redback 18", 120V Lithium, Cordless (Battery) Chainsaw

[Philbert]

The 3Ah battery weighs almost 4 ounces more than the 2Ah battery (about 6%). Good deal for 50% more run time?

Philbert

 

[Philbert]

Took it to the races!

I'm not much of a chainsaw racer, and this is not a racing saw, but I took it to the local GTG / race just for fun. Challenged anyone with a stock 45cc saw or under *as long as we started with both saws in the' off' position*. 2 cuts down; 1 cut up in a cottonwood cant.

Won one and lost one! Not too shabby, considering all of the piped, modified, and tweaked saws there. I used the OEM supplied, Tri-Link, reduced kickback chain. Posted the best times for a battery powered saw!




Got a few other guys to try it:




Philbert

 

[Philbert]

A Few More



Philbert

 

[Wilhelm]

I am very curious regarding this saw, with a 1 hour run time on a stock battery charge it could fare very well for brush clearing.

I'd combine this saw with a higher quality chain, the TriLink loops I have do work but they are not fast cutting.

I wonder how PowerSharp would behave on this saw. . .

Thank You for posting this thread @Philbert

 

[Philbert]

Change of Chains

A couple of people asked me to try the 120V saw with some other chains - they must have assumed that I had some?
I have several concerns about these comparisons - not enough space for all the asterisks ('*') in one post, but here are a few:

* To be objective really requires an automated, instrumented test fixture (something I can't afford) that applies uniform pressure, and that measures things like chain speed, motor load, etc.

* To be consistent requires clear, uniform test wood (something else that I can't afford) to make sure that all cuts are in the same material.

* Might the results be different in different wood (hard vs. soft, green vs. dead, different species, etc.)?

* Is it more fair to use all 'new-out-of-the-box' chains, or to grind / file all chains to the exact same angles?

* Are we testing the saw, or really comparing the chains?

* These timed cuts do not measure how long a chain remains sharp, 'stretches', lasts, etc.

With all of those disclaimers, I did what I could.

Philbert

 

[Philbert]

The Line Up

Here is what I assembled, at a secret facility operated by 'Calibrate This!' testing. All chains are 3/8, low profile pitch:


PS, ST, TL, VG, PX chains (top to bottom)

'TL' - TriLink (OEM supplied), semi-chisel, reduced kickback drive links, 61 DL on 18" TriLink (OEM supplied) guide bar. Sharpened about 3 times.
'PX' - Oregon 91PX, semi-chisel, reduced kickback drive links, 62 DL on same guide bar. New
'VG' - Oregon 91VG, semi-chisel, reduced kickback tie straps, 61 DL on same guide bar. Well-used chain, with about half its life remaining.
'ST' - STIHL PS, full-chisel, NOT reduced kickback, 56DL on 16" Oregon guide bar. New.
'PS' - Oregon PowerSharp, top ground chisel, reduced kickback drive links, 56DL on 16" Oregon PowerSharp guide bar. Used, with more than half its life remaining.



For cuts I used fairly uniform logs from my test pile:
Ash - cut live about 2 months ago.
Birch - somewhat punky, cut a few years ago.
Silver Maple - slightly spalted, cut 1+ years ago.





Rigorous test supervision and site security.

Philbert

 

[Philbert]

Results

I made at least 4 cuts with each chain, in each log, resulting in over 80 test cuts. Times were estimated (' . . .one Husqvarna, two Husqvarna . . . '), with light pressure applied. Approximate time, in seconds listed.


Cookie Factory!

It was good to have a tool-less chain tensioner for this much chain swapping. I now know that it takes exactly 8 turns (16 half turns) of the large wheel to remove and replace the clutch cover.



Are these results surprising? expected? conclusive? significant?
Did the worn TL and VG chains perform better than they would have if new?
Should the full-chisel, NOT reduced kickback STIHL PS chain shown more of a difference?
I noted that the PS chain cut better in the softer wood than the harder wood (it out-cut some VG and PX chains in other comparisons I did in different wood, several years ago).

For the type of cutting that this type of saw would normally be used for, I don't think that the differences in cut times between the conventional chains are practically significant.

However, since run time is a key issue with battery-powered saws, a more efficient chain could mean getting a few more cuts in before recharging or swapping batteries (think Gary Sinise in Apollo 13). The chain I would like to try (did not have a compatible bar) would be a narrow kerf, 3/8, low profile (e.g. Oregon Type 90) chain, on a 16 inch bar. Even though this saw has the power to pull the 18 bar, I would probably be using it mostly on smaller stuff, and would look forward to the extra cuts.


Coolies and Chips!

Philbert

 

[Wilhelm]

Change of Chains

A couple of people asked me to try the 120V saw with some other chains - they must have assumed that I had some?
I have several concerns about these comparisons - not enough space for all the asterisks ('*') in one post, but here are a few:

* To be objective really requires an automated, instrumented test fixture (something I can't afford) that applies uniform pressure, and that measures things like chain speed, motor load, etc.

* To be consistent requires clear, uniform test wood (something else that I can't afford) to make sure that all cuts are in the same material.

* Might the results be different in different wood (hard vs. soft, green vs. dead, different species, etc.)?

* Is it more fair to use all 'new-out-of-the-box' chains, or to grind / file all chains to the exact same angles?

* Are we testing the saw, or really comparing the chains?

* These timed cuts do not measure how long a chain remains sharp, 'stretches', lasts, etc.

With all of those disclaimers, I did what I could.

Philbert

The Line Up

Here is what I assembled, at a secret facility operated by 'Calibrate This!' testing. All chains are 3/8, low profile pitch:

View attachment 80241
PS, ST, TL, VG, PX chains (top to bottom)

'TL' - TriLink (OEM supplied), semi-chisel, reduced kickback drive links, 61 DL on 18" TriLink (OEM supplied) guide bar. Sharpened about 3 times.
'PX' - Oregon 91PX, semi-chisel, reduced kickback drive links, 62 DL on same guide bar. New
'VG' - Oregon 91VG, semi-chisel, reduced kickback tie straps, 61 DL on same guide bar. Well-used chain, with about half its life remaining.
'ST' - STIHL PS, full-chisel, NOT reduced kickback, 56DL on 16" Oregon guide bar. New.
'PS' - Oregon PowerSharp, top ground chisel, reduced kickback drive links, 56DL on 16" Oregon PowerSharp guide bar. Used, with more than half its life remaining.

View attachment 80242

For cuts I used fairly uniform logs from my test pile:
Ash - cut live about 2 months ago.
Birch - somewhat punky, cut a few years ago.
Silver Maple - slightly spalted, cut 1+ years ago.

View attachment 80244
View attachment 80245

View attachment 80243
Rigorous test supervision and site security.

Philbert

Results

I made at least 4 cuts with each chain, in each log, resulting in over 80 test cuts. Times were estimated (' . . .one Husqvarna, two Husqvarna . . . '), with light pressure applied. Approximate time, in seconds listed.

View attachment 80246
Cookie Factory!

It was good to have a tool-less chain tensioner for this much chain swapping. I now know that it takes exactly 8 turns (16 half turns) of the large wheel to remove and replace the clutch cover.

View attachment 80247

Are these results surprising? expected? conclusive? significant?
Did the worn TL and VG chains perform better than they would have if new?
Should the full-chisel, NOT reduced kickback STIHL PS chain shown more of a difference?
I noted that the PS chain cut better in the softer wood than the harder wood (it out-cut some VG and PX chains in other comparisons I did in different wood, several years ago).

For the type of cutting that this type of saw would normally be used for, I don't think that the differences in cut times between the conventional chains are practically significant.

However, since run time is a key issue with battery-powered saws, a more efficient chain could mean getting a few more cuts in before recharging or swapping batteries (think Gary Sinise in Apollo 13). The chain I would like to try (did not have a compatible bar) would be a narrow kerf, 3/8, low profile (e.g. Oregon Type 90) chain, on a 16 inch bar. Even though this saw has the power to pull the 18 bar, I would probably be using it mostly on smaller stuff, and would look forward to the extra cuts.

View attachment 80248
Coolies and Chips!

Philbert

Thank You @Philbert !

My comment about PowerSharp on this saw wasn't related to faster cutting, but rather that this saw might actually have the grunt required to pull the chain properly.
PowerSharp bogged my tired 40cc saw down quite a bit, without pressure.
Also, if PowerSharp works well on this saw it would be a good match as one would work even more worry free not having to file his chain during a job.

There is a bear under Your bench!

 

[Philbert]

I do like the convenience of the PowerSharp chains. The one used in this test was 'borrowed' from a 13A, corded, Makita saw.

Philbert

 

[JimS]

I recently purchased this saw and I'm only getting about 20-30 minutes of cut time with it. This is mostly cut time with minimal time spent moving between cuts or moving logs around, cutting 14-18 inch diameter cherry that has been down for at least two years. I've used 4 full charges on the pack so far using the stock chain and haven't yet put a file to it though it's probably due. I'm a bit disappointed in the run time, as well as the chain speed. I had hoped they would have used the higher working voltage to run the motor at higher RPM's but it seems similar to a friend's EGO 56 Volt saw.

 

[JimS]

Anyone from Canada looking for a great price on a 3ah pack for this saw should check out Costco:
https://www.costco.ca/.product.1140982.html
Unfortunately I'm in the US and haven't found any similar pricing, seems to be twice that much

 

[Wood Doctor]

Electricity costs less today you know.
Than it did 25 years ago.
A little birdie told me so.

Circa 1958
p.s. I think the birdie's name was Little Bill.

 

[JimS]

Hittin the sauce a little hard tonight eh

 

[Philbert]

I recently purchased this saw and I'm only getting about 20-30 minutes of cut time with it. . . cutting 14-18 inch diameter cherry that has been down for at least two years. . . . (RPMs) seems similar to a friend's EGO 56 Volt saw.

14 - 18 inch cherry, dried 2 years, sounds like pretty challenging wood to cut, especially for a battery saw.

Did you try to cut it with your friend's EGO 56V saw side-by-side? That would be an interesting comparison.

Phil

 

[JimS]

Haven't had a chance to do any side by side testing.
Yes the wood I was cutting was probably a bit much for this saw, I wanted to push it and see what it was capable of. A second battery would be nice to have.
Other notes, the oil fill opening could be larger but that's true of some other saws as well, the reservoir lasts about 1.5 charges, so probably a full charge of the 3ah battery, the charger is only 1 amp so the 2ah battery takes 2 hours to charge. I'd consider 1 hour or less to be fast charging for lithium ion.
Over all I think this saw is at least somewhat better quality than the EGO 56V though not sure if it's any faster. I'll try to do some comparative testing soon. The EGO is a 16 inch bar so the chains will be different. I suppose I could try the EGO bar and chain on the RedBack.

 

[Philbert]

Haven't had a chance to do any side by side testing. . . . I'll try to do some comparative testing soon. The EGO is a 16 inch bar so the chains will be different. I suppose I could try the EGO bar and chain on the RedBack.

The difference between a 16 and 18 inch bar should not be too significant (assuming that the bars are not maxed out in the wood), but the different chains could be. Try to find a variety of wood species and diameters to compare, if you can.

Nice thing about these saws is that the bars and chains are pretty easy to swap for comparisons like these. Side-by-side you will also be able to compare weight, balance, etc.

Philbert

 

[Wood Doctor]

Hittin the sauce a little hard tonight eh

Not really. I still have a good memory. Maybe you do to.

 

[JimS]

Guess not since I have no idea what your post means or it's relevance to this thread topic.

 

[JimS]

Did some informal comparison testing between the RedBack and the EGO. EGO had a fresh chain so I used the same 16 inch bar and chain on both saws. The EGO cut much better. I could bog down the RedBack by pushing hard but the EGO kept cutting well. The RedBack didn't have any noticeably faster chain speed. The RedBack is a heavier saw and seems to be better overall quality, the EGO has a habit of throwing the chain if you don't pay close attention to the tension, I've read others report the same problem with it, but the EGO motor seems to have better torque. I was really expecting the 120V RedBack to be a better performer than the 56V EGO but it's not even as good.

 

[Philbert]

Thanks for the input.

Nothing like personally trying things side-by-side!

Philbert