# Less is more? How much "cordage" do you lose when cut & split?



## drewmo (Feb 15, 2010)

I recently had a load of wood delivered and what I ordered is not what I received. However, with my wood, the driver handed me a piece of paper explaining exactly what I got to negate any argument I might launch. Bear with me, I live in France and you buy wood by the cubic-meter, also known as a "stere." I purchased 10 stere, the equivalent of 2.75 cords. I asked for the wood to be cut to 33 cm and split. After stacking the wood, I measured it to be exactly 7 cubic meters, not the 10 cubic meters I was expecting. However, the piece of paper the driver handed to me explained that I had purchased 10 cubic meters of uncut, unsplit logs a meter in length. When cut down to 33cm and split, as I requested, it equals 7 cubic meters - just as I had measured. (Likewise, the same amount of wood cut to 50cm and split will equal 8 cubic meter.)

I can justify that once cut and split, the wood might fit more tightly together, therefore decreasing its overall volume. But I lost 30 percent in volume. Does this sound right, and how is it done by the cord? Is a cord measured by wood that's cut and split, or by unsplit 4-foot lengths?


----------



## smokinj (Feb 15, 2010)

drewmo said:
			
		

> If recently had a load of wood delivered and what I ordered is not what I received. However, with my wood, the driver handed me a piece of paper explaining exactly what I got to negate any argument I might launch. Bear with me, I live in France and you buy wood by the cubic-meter, also known as a "stere." I purchased 10 stere, the equivalent of 2.75 cords. I asked for the wood to be cut to 33 cm and split. After stacking the wood, I measured it to be exactly 7 cubic meters, not the 10 cubic meters I was expecting. However, the piece of paper the driver handed to me explained that I had purchased 10 cubic meters of uncut, unsplit logs a meter in length. When cut down to 33cm and split, as I requested, it equals 7 cubic meters - just as I had measured. (Likewise, the same amount of wood cut to 50cm and split will equal 8 cubic meter.)
> 
> I can justify that once cut and split, the wood might fit more tightly together, therefore decreasing its overall volume. But I lost 30 percent in volume. Does this sound right, and how is it done by the cord? Is a cord measured by wood that's cut and split, or by unsplit 4-foot lengths?



we measure it after its cut and split


----------



## LLigetfa (Feb 15, 2010)

Wood takes up more space after cutting and splitting, not less.


----------



## BucksCoBernie (Feb 15, 2010)

If you ordered 10 stere then you should of received 10 stere regardless if it was measured before or after. you cant burn the wood before it was split.

If he argues i would fart in his general direction and say "Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!"


----------



## rdust (Feb 15, 2010)

We've had many discussions on similar subject before.  You're going to get a mix of different responses.  

I've never cut from log length so I can't comment from that aspect of it.  I will say when I have rounds cut to 16" length and I split it usually stacks up to be slightly more then it was in rounds.  I figure this is due to all the extra air space it picks up.

Around here I've never heard anyone sell wood the way it was sold to you after it's been cut and split.  It was cut and split when it was delivered correct?  If I buy 4 cords of c/s/d wood that's what I expect when I stack it up.  This may be common practice for your country/area, I'm not sure.


----------



## flyingcow (Feb 15, 2010)

I bought a load of hardwood last yr, tree length. Most trees were at least 30ft+ long. But the length is not relevant. Anyways, i bought it buy the weight. Up here, 5,000lbs = 1 cord. Obviously varies in species, but thats the rule of thumb. I took delivery of 60,000lbs. Thats 12 cord by weight, once cut/split/stacked in came out to 10 cord, maybe 10 1/4 cord, but a good strong 10. Thats what i expected. i stacked them in very tight rows and each row = 128 cu/ft.  

The species of wood was rock maple and a little beech mixed in, green just off the stump the week before I got it. Which usually a cord of that stuff is closer to 6,000lb a cord, but if i wanted to use that rule, it would have cost me more per cord. It equaled out.

Not sure if that helps or not.


----------



## PNWBurner (Feb 15, 2010)

In the US a cord is always measured after it's bucked and split.  At least I've never heard of anyone doing otherwise.  I guess there might be a different tradition in France though.

Why stop at log length though?  You could measure the volume of the whole tree, leaves and all and start from there too if you wanted.

It does sound a bit odd but obviously you're not the first person to wonder about it if he had a printed explanation ready.


----------



## pen (Feb 15, 2010)

same as dust and flying cow, when I cut and split it takes up less space.

I've never heard of wood being sold as they describe, but you are in France and I am not!

For example, several buddies and I often fill a large dump trailer with rounds so that it is heaping up on the side racks (we stop when we think something is going to fall out)

Once split, we can fit the same wood back on that trailer no problem as it has a reduced volume.  As rdust mentioned, the original rounds had a lot of air space in between them.  

pen


----------



## SolarAndWood (Feb 15, 2010)

PNWBurner said:
			
		

> It does sound a bit odd but obviously you're not the first person to wonder about it if he had a printed explanation ready.



It would seem that just saying bend over you get what you get was deemed inadequate.


----------



## ISeeDeadBTUs (Feb 15, 2010)

How do you say 'Bull Shi+" in French?

Some guys here say the wood takes up more space after splitting. Some say it takes up less space after splitting. Some -me :smirk: - say it takes up the same space. But if it's satcked as tightly before splitting as after, it CERTAINLY is not going to change *30%*.


----------



## bogydave (Feb 16, 2010)

Split takes up more room if you are stacking it so it will season well. You want air space between the surfaces.
If you then stack the well seasoned stuff in a shed or "ready to be used" pile. Stack it tight, for space saving reasons.
Good straight grained wood, will stack tight. I found that my crooked, bent & bowed birch takes up more space when split.
30% more space is a real stretch though. 
But lots of it  depend on who stacks it , how it's stacked (to season or to save space), what is stacked (straight, or crooked & bowed splits)

If a load of wood is stacked in a truck or trailer, it will be more wood than if it's just thrown or dumped in the same truck or trailer.
Some sellers here, have big piles & load a dump truck with splits with a front end loader. The volume of the truck bed will not match the volume
of stacked wood. (the neatly stacked splits will have less volume, and causes the same problems here in Alaska as in France between the buyer & seller)
"Twas always thus and always thus shall be"   IMHO 

We need somebody with a 4' X 4' X 8' tub, stack it full of wood, now measure how many gallons of water it takes to fill the tub. 
There are 0.13368 cubic feet per gallon. There are 7.48 gallons in one cubic foot
Now we know how much wet wood we have  (or in my case, how much ice   LOL )


----------



## Jeff S (Feb 16, 2010)

I find this odd that a seller has to give you documentation as proof of why he has given you a raw deal.
How do you know there was 10 stere worth of wood in log form,does his documentation show the exact volume of each log before it was processed?
He certainly new the volume of it after processing.
Did anyone explain this method of calculating before your purchase?
I don"t live in France so don't know there practices,but it sounds like you have never heard of these tactics either.
Inquire from other dealers and those who have made purchases in your area to see if this is common.
Sounds like a very poor way of doing business.


----------



## Apprentice_GM (Feb 16, 2010)

In my part of Oz it's common to sell firewood by the cubic metre - 2 m3 is a normal load. That's split and loose stacked in the truck prior to dumping at the customer's place. But we pay per m3 for cut / split into any length you want (and ostensibly "seasoned" but as per many sellers in the US the definition and understanding of seasoned varies from green to a few months) and certainly not per m3 pre-split. That kind of business practice would be illegal Down Under.







I only bought it once - it cost $275 (AU$ so ~$300 US) for 2 cubic metres which is less than half a cord. * Too expensive and too green. The firewood seller was cleaning up though.

* Although a cubic metre is ~35 cubic feet and so 2 m3 should be 70 cubic feet or over half a cord, the loose stacking method in the truck means it is less than half a cord once stacked out.


----------



## lowroadacres (Feb 16, 2010)

When buying wood in log length, and then cutting, splitting and stacking it into stove length you will experience significant shrinkage.

From experience I can tell you that it is a painful realization to know that your cost per actual cord at the end is substantially more.  On a large load I purchased some time ago as an attempt at a business the shrinkage was over 30 percent.

When the wood is in log length the airspace in the load is much higher due to the variations in the logs over a much longer span as compared to the way in which splits are able to be stacked more tightly.

It is not unlike the wood sellers who bring a load just tossed in the back of a half ton and then try to tell you that it is (insert amount here).  This is why I am hoping to never purchase another stick of firewood again in my life..... Here's hoping


----------



## Wood Duck (Feb 16, 2010)

it seems that you got the standard deal - the seller even had documentation of how much volume you were getting in 1m length and how much you could expect when cut and split. I am surprised that the wood shrank 30%, but apparently that is the norm, based on the explanation from the seller.

I would have expected rounds only 1 m long to fit together about as tightly as splits, but I guess they don't.


----------



## drewmo (Feb 16, 2010)

Interesting to see the various opinions out there on this subject, even more interesting to see that there is no consensus. Guess it could be debated for quite some time yet, which any Frenchman would be more than willing to do. It's my understanding here, when you purchase your wood, you're purchasing uncut, unsplit meter lengths. You can then ask your wood guy to cut and split to your specifications. So, if 10 stere uncut = 7 stere cut, I can't complain, though I still think a 30 percent loss is a bit high. And wood doesn't come cheap here. But, when you're paying more than $7 for a gallon of gas, you can expect to pay your vendor for that as well.


----------



## PNWBurner (Feb 16, 2010)

Just out of curiosity how much does 10 stere of firewood cost in France?

2.75 cords in the US would be in the neighborhood of $500 USD give or take a bit.


----------



## ISeeDeadBTUs (Feb 16, 2010)

lowroadacres said:
			
		

> From experience I can tell you that it is a painful realization to know that your cost per actual cord at the end is substantially more.  On a large load I purchased some time ago as an attempt at a business the shrinkage was over 30 percent.
> 
> When the wood is in log length the airspace in the load is much higher due to the variations in the logs over a much longer span as compared to the way in which splits are able to be stacked more tightly.



I don't think anyone here is going to deny that stove length, split firewood can be stacked musch more compactly than logs on a triax load. 

The question though . . . how are you 'measuring' the cords on the triax load? Let me answer my own question. Yer not. Because you can't. You can go on past experiance of how much the triax load ends up being after cutting to length and stacking it. Or you can c/s/s the load and then measure. But no one is going to let you do that and then pay them a per/cord.

But this 30% factor is UKnowWhat . . . ya cant MEASURE cords in a log load. You can MEASURE cordage after its c/s/s.


----------



## NH_Wood (Feb 16, 2010)

Hmmm.....weird one.  Could the seller mean that you bought a certain amount of log length, then asked for the order to be cut and split?  You'd lose some of the volume from the kerf, but I can't see how you'd lose that amount of volume.  Definitely strange that he had a sheet of paper ready to go explaining why it me 'seem' that you were shafted - sure seems that you were! Cheers!


----------



## drewmo (Feb 16, 2010)

PNWBurner said:
			
		

> Just out of curiosity how much does 10 stere of firewood cost in France?
> 
> 2.75 cords in the US would be in the neighborhood of $500 USD give or take a bit.



I paid 65 euro per stere, and at today's exchange rate, that 10 stere (2.75 cords) cost us just shy of U$900. Obviously much more than my compatriots are paying Stateside. Like gas, everything but wine costs more in France. C'est la vie.

I was hoping it wouldn't come to this, but since we can't come to an agreement on whether you gain or lose "volume" after cutting/splitting, I'm going to have the final word and say that you lose volume once it's cut, split & stacked. Splits stack better when not completely round (see attached photo). I can't see rounds sitting that tight together.


----------



## flyingcow (Feb 16, 2010)

drewmo said:
			
		

> PNWBurner said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Can't agree os because everyone does it a little different. My earlier post, i bought tree length load of wood, by weight. That,s the norm up here. So, i bought 12 cord by weight(60,000lbs of wood/5,000lb per cord). Paid $90 a cord. For my region, this was a good price. Especially since it was rock maple and very, very clean. Anyways, once cut/split/stacked i measured 10 cord by cu/ft. So now it fuigures $108 per (128 cu/ft) cord. Plus my cost of cutting up.  


In your case, i dunno, but 30% loss is a bit much. But we are an ocean apart, and who knows?.......


----------



## SolarAndWood (Feb 17, 2010)

drewmo said:
			
		

> (see attached photo)



I'm glad I'm not the only one that stacks 9 ft high against my house.


----------

