Thread: Rules? What rules?

Originally Posted by BobL

On closer inspection, nothing at all on importing.

The general use and safe work practices documents read more or less like a recent stihl or husky user manual and some of the diagrams are almost identical. For that reason alone I wouldn't bother buying the standard docs. There are some numerical specifications regarding what should trigger the chain brake and how hard the trigger lock should prevent the clutch from activating.

At least it acknowledges that there must be a chain brake.

Vernon
to some extent product and design standards exist to protect the uninformed
an example is the Building Code of Australia which specifies hold down requirements for houses in cyclone prone areas -- now you could require that all builders of houses in cyclone prone areas are required to demonstrate, from first principles (i.e. with full engineering calcs and wind tunnel tests) that the house they are currently building will withstand a cyclone However, it's easier and cheaper for everyone for the BCA to specify a set of hold down requirements.

Similarly with other products
I don't have a beef with people buying cheap unsuported gear, but I do worry if that gear differs from the normal expectation (or standard) and is dangerous.

cheap cars typically have cheaper brakes that don't perform as well as the brakes on more expensive cars, but the brakes still work to a minimum standard -- whatever that is

e-bay is only interested in making money from the seller. bugger the poor person buying.

Originally Posted by BobL

I'm a bit concerned about the extent to which you guys seem to be getting all hot and bothered by this. As soon as you successfully lobby to have a CS without a chain brake as an illegal import this screws around with genuine CS collectors. There is no way any regulation will be able to discriminate between a vintage used CS made in Germany without a chainbrake and a new b'Boingo saw without a chain brake made in Chikanstan?

Let's leave natural selection take it's course.

Outright fraud is a separate issue and I am more than happy to let the corporate lawyers loose on that lot.

I do agree that chainsaw collecting should be exempt. In factg if you recall I recently started a thread relating to the 090 Stihl, a saw that would fail almost every modern safety standard.
If we compare chainsaws to the automotive industry, which isn't a bad idea in this case, we can use a ruling that a saw must comply with the relevant standards that applied when it was manufactured.
It is obvious that these sellers are either blatantly incompetent or intentionally misleading and as such would break Ebays rule of honesty in listing.
It does concern me that we are being flooded with these crappy imports at the expense of local dealers who must comply with the relevant rules.
For example we currently have on the marked the Great Wall ute - built in China, cheaper than the equivalent Nissan, Toyota and Mazda etc, but complying with all relevant ADR's. No problem.
Should we accept the Wing Wang Ho chainsaw factory product that does not comply with current standards?
I despise the "Big Brother" state as much as anyone but eventually there must come a point where we say NO.

Hi all,

in the Netherlands, safety regulations state that any chain saw sold later than January 1st 1995, should have a built-in automatic chain brake, capable of stopping the chain within 0.15 seconds. I imported a Stihl E220 from Germany, which was made in 2000, but it has no automatic brake yet. The E220C had one and was sold as an alternative option in the same catalog. The brake in question is electric, it works through the motor's electronics system (which also provides soft start and overload protection) by briefly reversing the motor at limited power. This is done by additional swith devices in the electronics, that temporarily reverse the field polarity. Such an electric brake is very common in modern battery drill-drivers, circular saws (notibly Festool) and cut-off saws. Around 2000, several Stihl petrol saws without brakes were still marketed, though mainly for export (South-America and Asia, like the 070 and 090), though these models already had a safety throttle (additional squeeze button on top of hind grip), which was required to be operable with gloves on. Around that time, German chain saws with brake were required to stop within 1 second.

Recently this has all changed, due to common European legislation. All German products now have brakes, required to act also upon kickback whip-ups. I believe brake time is also 0.15 seconds or less. Older saws without brakes are allowed to be sold second hand in Europe and are also still allowed to be used, but exclusively by the owner himself. Personnel is not allowed to touch such machines and responsibility for safety and violations rest with the owner. It would be interesting to follow how the Chinese product above would fare on the European market. Safety inspectors would certainly act on them, but on average the same seemingly random behaviour of safety organisations that you wrote about, can be found around here.

greetings

gerhard

Originally Posted by gerhard

Hi all,

in the Netherlands, safety regulations state that any chain saw sold later than January 1st 1995, should have a built-in automatic chain brake, capable of stopping the chain within 0.15 seconds.

The Australian Standard (is probably the same since I think it is based on an ISO standard) is that the chain brake should activate on average with 0.12 s and no greater than 0.15 s.

I look everywhere for any reference to CS mills and all I could find is the standard does not apply to any "mechanical aids assisting the task of cutting wood" - whatever that means.

Bob, out of interest, does the standard actually say that "all chainsaws must be fitted with a chain brake" (or words to that effect) or does it simply stipluate how a chain brake should operate "if the saw is fitted with a chain brake"?

Originally Posted by ian

to some extent product and design standards exist to protect the uninformed

To expand on your BCA example ... if I was to build a house by myself, I would inform myself of the BCA rules ... or if I contracted a builder to build my house, I would remain blissfully uninformed of the BCA requirements as the builder should know them.

If I wanted to cut a tree down, I would ensure that I was fully informed of how to use a chainsaw safely to perform such an operation (as I have done) ... or I would contract an arborist to cut the tree down for me.

It doesn't take much to get informed about chainsaw operation and the quality of brands available. If someone is not willing to do such simple research, then they shouldn't use a chainsaw or suffer the consequences of buying unsupported gear or suffering an injury by using the chainsaw in an unsafe manor.

Originally Posted by Vernonv

Bob, out of interest, does the standard actually say that "all chainsaws must be fitted with a chain brake" (or words to that effect) or does it simply stipluate how a chain brake should operate "if the saw is fitted with a chain brake"?

It says CS "shall" be fitted with a chainbrake.
The chainbrake must be operable manually, and automatically on kickback.
The brake specs have to operate and comply according to ISO 6535 and ISO 13772, and for saws greater than 80cc with ISO 9518.

Thanks Bob.

Originally Posted by Vernonv

Thanks Bob.

No worries.

I've been reading through the safe practices standards document.
Nothing appears to obligatory, the term "should" is used, eg "leg protection according to AS/NZS 4453 should be worn" This is somewhat bizzare, there is a specific standard as to what the CS protective legwear should be, but nothing to say you should wear it. To me that's like saying the seatbelt has to be "this design" but wearing it is up to you.

The standards are not there to tell you that you must wear something, they are there to specify what specific details the prescribed product must have and what specifications they must meet, it is up to people like worksafe to set and enforce safe working practices, and regulate what is defined as obligatory as far as things like required PPE etc.

Originally Posted by Vernonv

To expand on your BCA example ... if I was to build a house by myself, I would inform myself of the BCA rules ... or if I contracted a builder to build my house, I would remain blissfully uninformed of the BCA requirements as the builder should know them.

If I wanted to cut a tree down, I would ensure that I was fully informed of how to use a chainsaw safely to perform such an operation (as I have done) ... or I would contract an arborist to cut the tree down for me.

It doesn't take much to get informed about chainsaw operation and the quality of brands available. If someone is not willing to do such simple research, then they shouldn't use a chainsaw or suffer the consequences of buying unsupported gear or suffering an injury by using the chainsaw in an unsafe manor.

Vernonv

your examples are good ones

If you were building a house, you might inform yourself of teh requireemnst of the BCA, but you would rely on your suppliers to deliver building materials that conformed to the relevant standards

if you were removing a tree, you might try to learn how to drop it where you wanted it, but you would expect your chain saw to conform with the relevant standard.
You might by a cheap unsupported saw because you only have one tree to remove, but as a consumer you shouldn't have to determine if teh saw conforms with all teh relevant standards

Originally Posted by ian

You might by a cheap unsupported saw because you only have one tree to remove, but as a consumer you shouldn't have to determine if teh saw conforms with all teh relevant standards

Yes I agree and I doubt you will see any markings on those saws to say that it does meet Australian standards ... but that was not really my point.

My point is that a chainsaw is a seriously dangerous tool (and that is not hard the figure out), and if someone buys and uses one without doing any research first, then they get what they deserve.

The government/authorities seem hell bent on protecting such fools from themselves and it seems, by some of the posts in this thread, that some forum members agree with that position. Personally, I am sick of the "nanny state" and think that a line needs to be drawn where people are made responsible for their own actions, decisions and ultimate safety ... and let Darwin take care of the rest.

If I wanted to buy a cheap saw to cut up some firewood or a tree, or whatever, then why should I be restricted from doing so? At the same time I would be doing so with my eyes wide open to the quality/support issues associated with "cheap" products.