# Log Splitter - How Many Tons is Enough?



## leeave96 (Jun 2, 2010)

I was at TSC the other day and saw log splitters from 22 to 35 tons!

How many tons to you really need to split firewood?

Any info - insite would be appreciated.

Thanks!
Bill


----------



## triptester (Jun 2, 2010)

There are many factors that determine how much tonnage is needed to split wood.

Species of wood.

Straight or twisting grain.


Overall diameter.

Wedge shape; Narrow wedges tend to slice the wood and require less tonnage but often need greater travel. Wide or winged wedges tend to tear the wood fibers apart when splitting, this usually requires more tonnage but can split the wood faster.

Size of the push or foot plate can also effect tonnage requirements.


----------



## TreePointer (Jun 2, 2010)

I haven't seen anyone here state that their 20+ ton, gas powered hydraulic splitter won't split wood. Some gnarly, twisted logs or crotches may cause the splitter to slow, or you may have to make a couple attempts at the log, but it will eventually split it or even "cut" across the grain.

There are many owners of the Huskee/SpeeCo 22-ton model here who will tell you that it will split just about anything. The tougher pieces make use of the slower, more powerful stage of the two-stage pump, but it gets the job done. The issues I recall for that model are that it has a shorter toe plate and wedge and is slower (cycle time) than some of the more expensive models; however, the cycle time is not an issue for a lot of one person operations.


----------



## BlueRidgeMark (Jun 2, 2010)

I have stopped my 35 ton with old, dry oak crotches. In fact, I even bent my toe plate on one.

Those who say their splitter has split everything they've thrown at it just haven't been splitting tough wood.



Does everyone need 35 tons? Nope. Depends what you're going to be splitting. Most of my wood is large oak, and a lot of it is crotches. I need 35 tons.

If I were splitting mostly straight grained stuff, I'm sure 22 tons would do the job.


----------



## hanniedog (Jun 2, 2010)

I have a 27 ton splitter that does a decent job and I have found some pieces that would stop it. At the time that was what I could afford. I would have rather had a 35 ton model but did not have extra cash. Get the biggest splitter your budget allows.


----------



## woodman6666 (Jun 2, 2010)

The more tonnage the better but you have to remember the integrity of the rest of the splitter has to be able to handle it my big splitter has between 80and 90 tons of force but it also has 2 large I beams on top of one another and the wedge is 2" thick and shaped like a large gusset, the other thing is when you get way up there in tonnage you need a tremendous amount of flow to keep any speed up.


----------



## BigE (Jun 2, 2010)

Get the best you can afford. What you can't split with it you can always noodle!


----------



## Rudedog (Jun 2, 2010)

hanniedog said:


> I have a 27 ton splitter that does a decent job and I have found some pieces that would stop it. At the time that was what I could afford. I would have rather had a 35 ton model but did not have extra cash. Get the biggest splitter your budget allows.



+1. I have the 22 ton Huskee/ Speeco splitter. The bigger more expensive splitter has nicer features. For $999 plus tax though I would say I did pretty well and would do it again. I do wish I could have gone the full monty and bought the 35 ton model.


----------



## RAMROD48 (Jun 2, 2010)

My 20 ton Northern Tool splitter works fine for everything I have....


----------



## Mister Twister (Jun 2, 2010)

Buy as much tonnage as you can afford. Not sure if you can have to much? I have the 35 ton and it works great but I have used homemade units and they were much better than splitting by hand.

It is hard to justify a nice Iron & Oak but you get what you pay for also. I think you will be happy with any of the Husky/Speeco units.

I see even some of the smaller units have a horizontal engine on them at our local TSC. 

My older 35 ton has a vertical shaft but it seems to work fine.


----------



## RAMROD48 (Jun 2, 2010)

You know the TW5 is only 25 tons....and there is nothing it wont split...

Timber Wolf is the tops in splitters....if they dont need more tonnage, Why do you??


----------



## beerman6 (Jun 2, 2010)

Because we are men...


----------



## RAMROD48 (Jun 2, 2010)

beerman6 said:


> Because we are men...



This is true, but tonage is only a number that the block of wood, doesnt understand...


----------



## Rudedog (Jun 2, 2010)

beerman6 said:


> Because we are men...



But it is the truth and the truth will set you free ................


----------



## ray benson (Jun 2, 2010)

Isn't most splitters tonnage rating fudged/inflated ? A 4" cylinder with relief set at 2500 lbs. is just under 16 ton push. A 5" cylinder with relief set at 2500 lbs. is just under 25 tons push.
A 4" cylinder will split all but the gnarliest pieces.


----------



## komatsuvarna (Jun 2, 2010)

ray benson said:


> Isn't most splitters tonnage rating fudged/inflated ? A 4" cylinder with relief set at 2500 lbs. is just under 16 ton push. A 5" cylinder with relief set at 2500 lbs. is just under 25 tons push.
> A 4" cylinder will split all but the gnarliest pieces.



:agree2: Ive looked at alot of splitters and some off them it fudged..... Some of the alot.


----------



## computeruser (Jun 2, 2010)

BlueRidgeMark said:


> Those who say their splitter has split everything they've thrown at it just haven't been splitting tough wood.
> 
> Does everyone need 35 tons? Nope. Depends what you're going to be splitting. Most of my wood is large oak, and a lot of it is crotches. I need 35 tons.
> 
> If I were splitting mostly straight grained stuff, I'm sure 22 tons would do the job.



+1.


I've got a 20ton machine (4"cyl, 11gpm, 13sec cycle) and I only occasionally want more tonnage, but often wish for faster cycle times.


----------



## CWME (Jun 2, 2010)

I have a 20 ton American splitter. With the single 1" wide wedge nothing will stop the machine as long as it is sharp. It will cut what it doesn't split.

From my limited experience the need for more tonage comes with the use of a 4 way wedge. I have to pick and choose the pieces I try to split with a 4 way on the 20 ton. Not only could it stall but the crotches put a lot of force on the beam. Having the 4 way sharp helps significantly with this issue. 

If you can't afford/don't want to spend more $, a 20-22 ton will serve you well. As another guy mentioned you can noodle what won't split. It won't be much.


----------



## indiansprings (Jun 2, 2010)

I use a 27 ton and consider it a minimun, but I split seasoned oak mostly. I have stopped it on occaison with nasty, knarly crotches. I agree than anyone who hasn't stopped a splitter just hasn't come across the right wood yet, all of them can be stopped imho. There are alot of factors, wood being split, the design of wedge,etc. If I had it to do over, I'd have bought a 35 ton, but thats for hardwood use exclusively. You can never have too much, but can have too little.


----------



## CWME (Jun 2, 2010)

computeruser said:


> +1.
> 
> 
> I've got a 20ton machine (4"cyl, 11gpm, 13sec cycle) and I only occasionally want more tonnage, but often wish for faster cycle times.



I can attest for the 16GPM pump that Northern sells. I had the same setup you did and upped it to the 16GPM when the 11gpm pump went. I haven't timed the cycle but I am not waiting on the ram... Northern's customer service is A+ to boot


----------



## CWME (Jun 2, 2010)

indiansprings said:


> I agree than anyone who hasn't stopped a splitter just hasn't come across the right wood yet, all of them can be stopped imho.



With a Pie shaped wedge I can definately see that being true. With a 1" wide wedge that is sharp nothing will stop the splitter. Let it dull up and all bets are off though.


----------



## ray benson (Jun 2, 2010)

That TSC 35 ton logsplitter has a 5" cylinder and 16 gpm pump - so it's not a real 35 ton push. More like 25 ton.


----------



## BlueRidgeMark (Jun 2, 2010)

ray benson said:


> Isn't most splitters tonnage rating fudged/inflated ? A 4" cylinder with relief set at 2500 lbs. is just under 16 ton push. A 5" cylinder with relief set at 2500 lbs. is just under 25 tons push.
> A 4" cylinder will split all but the gnarliest pieces.



Yep.

But I think they all lie pretty much the same, so it's still valid for comparison.


There might be some exceptions, but the more common brands all seem to use the same fudge recipe.


I'd like to see them publish the operating pressure and piston area. Then there's no fudge room.


----------



## IllinoisJim (Jun 3, 2010)

*splitter and speed...*

I have also been contemplating how the ratings can be so high and figured they must be fudged somehow. Seems like every industry does that with their numbers. Have been trying to decide on 4 or 5" cylinder. Probably will go for 4" for better speed and to keep from bending anything. I did want to make a slip on T knife for the big stuff.

For speed the prince "rapid extend" valve looks like an easy upgrade path. It has an extra position that feeds pressure to both sides of the piston so it extends like a piston the size of the rod - very fast. When it hits the block and stops you go to the regular position and get full power. Doesn't speed up retract but for one man operation it doesn't matter as much. Anyone used this valve that can tell us how well they like it?

My system is 8 GPM and if the valve works well I may go with less than PTO speed on the tractor which will be even less flow.


----------



## 2FatGuys (Jun 3, 2010)

IllinoisJim said:


> ...For speed the prince "rapid extend" valve looks like an easy upgrade path....
> 
> My system is 8 GPM and if the valve works well I may go with less than PTO speed on the tractor which will be even less flow.



The Prince data specifies a maximum of 4gpm inlet flow.


----------



## olyman (Jun 3, 2010)

BlueRidgeMark said:


> I have stopped my 35 ton with old, dry oak crotches. In fact, I even bent my toe plate on one.
> 
> Those who say their splitter has split everything they've thrown at it just haven't been splitting tough wood.
> 
> ...



i agree wholeheartedly. my homebuilt has 30 ton of force--and the one thing that stopped it cold?????? a 48 dia chunk of fresh cut sap oozing cottonwood!!!!!!! surprised me, as nothings stopped it before,including a 52 in dia ash that was green!!!! some knarly stringy wood will surprise yah!!!


----------



## husky455rancher (Jun 3, 2010)

i got a modified 16ton ramsplitter. its only not been able to split a handful of logs in the 4 or 5 years ive owned it.


----------



## 1harlowr (Jun 3, 2010)

I agree any splitter can be stopped. I have the 22ton Huskee and only very occasionally come across a piece it wont split. Usually can split the round that stops the splitter by repositioning the round. For the money I'd buy the same splitter again. Just wish it had a lager gas tank


----------



## Oldtimer (Jun 3, 2010)

How many tons?

More. Just plain MORE. No such thing as "too much" where wood splitter tonnage is concerned.


----------



## Thickskin (Jun 4, 2010)

komatsuvarna said:


> :agree2: Ive looked at alot of splitters and some off them it fudged..... Some of the alot.



Do you know what their pressure relief was set at? 
Some mfg. set it at 3400 psi which is well above the 2500 previously stated.


----------



## Thickskin (Jun 4, 2010)

ray benson said:


> That TSC 35 ton logsplitter has a 5" cylinder and 16 gpm pump - so it's not a real 35 ton push. More like 25 ton.




I am curious how you come by your calculations? Can you explain the numbers?


----------



## ray benson (Jun 4, 2010)

burdens surplus center has a tech help page with all sorts of plug in formulas and information. So instead of using pi x r x r x psi. I used their plug in formula in calculators - force and speed.
https://www.surpluscenter.com/techhelp.asp?catname=


----------



## Wood Doctor (Jun 4, 2010)

Even a 3" cylinder with a 2-stage pump will seldom stall out with a 6.5 Hp engine driving it. Take a look at this table:






Note that the bigger the cylinder, the larger the pump and motor required--and that usually means more fuel. You will also increase cycle time with behemoth machines and that will slow you down with the smaller logs that are easy to split. So, it's give and take.


----------



## AKKAMAAN (Jun 4, 2010)

leeave96 said:


> I was at TSC the other day and saw log splitters from 22 to 35 tons!
> 
> How many tons to you really need to split firewood?
> 
> ...


Every body is talking about "how many tons" on a splitter...and no one talks about how to reduce "wedge friction".....

Most std splitters I have seen do not have very well designed splitting wedges....

They are to wide/tall...see a comparison of axes...





There is a reason why the Fiskars Super Splitter Axe perform better than other axes.....DESIGN.....

This design technology should be applied on splitters too....that way, power could be used for increasing speed and cycle time instead of tonnage...
You do not need a 8-12" tall wedge to split a log....A 2-4" razor sharp wedge will crack a log more easily than a dull 10" one....

Another thing is that a splitter wedge need to be as sharp as possible.....if you can cut your self on a splitter wedge...it is definitely subject to sharpening

Log splitter designers have to start thinking "outside the box".....

EDIT:


----------



## AKKAMAAN (Jun 4, 2010)

Wood Doctor said:


> Even a 3" cylinder with a 2-stage pump will seldom stall out with a 6.5 Hp engine driving it. Take a look at this table:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I am glad you are utilizing my tables Wood Doctor!
Here is another one on the same subject...


----------



## 2FatGuys (Jun 4, 2010)

ray benson said:


> burdens surplus center has a tech help page with all sorts of plug in formulas and information. So instead of using pi x r x r x psi. I used their plug in formula in calculators - force and speed.
> https://www.surpluscenter.com/techhelp.asp?catname=



OK... let's say I'm listening... tel us how force and speed are related.

There is only ONE formula for "Tonnage" of splitting: Area of piston x PSI / 2000. You can achieve 30 tons with a 5" cylinder at 3000PSI or a 6" cylinder at 2100PSI. Cylinder size alone doesn't determine it. PSI alone doesn't either. And GPM has ZERO bearing on tonnage!

Cycle speed is determine by cylinder extension volume, cylinder retraction volume, pump speed and engine RPM. Cylinder volumes are a product of diameter and stroke length. The cycle time has ZERO to do with tonnage.

But... I am willing to learn. Clue me in...


----------



## 2FatGuys (Jun 4, 2010)

AKKAMAAN said:


> Every body is talking about "how many tons" on a splitter...and no one talks about how to reduce "wedge friction"....



Friction is a VERY minor consideration in the operation of a hydraulic splitter. The friction caused by the wedge is immeasurable compared to the TONNAGE we create. What you REALLY mean is that on most splitters, "the rate of separation of wood fibers caused by the angle of attack on the wedge exceeds the yield point of the wood". This is not friction. And this varies based on wood species, condition, temperature, moisture content, and many other variables.



AKKAMAAN said:


> Most std splitters I have seen do not have very well designed splitting wedges....
> 
> They are to wide/tall...see a comparison of axes...
> 
> There is a reason why the Fiskars Super Splitter Axe perform better than other axes.....DESIGN.....



Comparing a splitter to an axe is like comparing a Corvette to my F-350. Yes, the Corvette will get you there faster, but to accomplish the same amount of work (hauling 15,000# of firewood, for example), you will have to make MANY more trips (maybe a 30:1 ratio?)!



AKKAMAAN said:


> This design technology should be applied on splitters too....that way, power could be used for increasing speed and cycle time instead of tonnage...
> 
> You do not need a 8-12" tall wedge to split a log....A 2-4" razor sharp wedge will crack a log more easily than a dull 10" one....



Power (HP) increases speed and cycle time, at the expense of fuel efficiency. Fluid pressure and increase in cylinder size increases tonnage. There is a reason we opt for a certain tonnage with hydraulic splitters... to separate wood fibers efficiently. There is NO reasonable way to transfer rotational inertia of an engine into linear speed of a wedge that anywhere near resembles the way an axe is used. The Fiskars works well because the potential energy of the axe head (mass x accelration) is applied instantaneously to a small area, creating a shock effect that the wood must respond to. There are splitters that use this concept (flywheel splitters like the Super Split) and they work GREAT! But hydraulics are designed to push the wedge through the wood, not shock it.



AKKAMAAN said:


> Another thing is that a splitter wedge need to be as sharp as possible.....if you can cut your self on a splitter wedge...it is definitely subject to sharpening



Statistically insignificant in the case of the wide wedges. Slightly significant for thinner ones. The wide wedges use the "inclined plane" concept to force the wood fibers apart. The thinner ones sometimes rely on a sheering process rather than a splitting process.



AKKAMAAN said:


> Log splitter designers have to start thinking "outside the box".....



Super Split... Screw Split... multi-wedge... etc?

Not trying to pick a fight, but the OP's question was how much tonnage is enough... 

There are some of us here with engineering backgrounds that have studied splitter designs for years. Does that mean there's no room for improvement? Nope... But if you are wanting to use hydraulics to do the splitting, then use them in a manner for whiuch their strengths can best be seen. The Fiskars idea is better suited to some sort of launch mechanism like the Super Split. I'll stick with "slowly" sheering the fibers, creating 6-8 pieces of firewood with each stroke, rather than repeatedly beating on the wood, hoping it will submit at some point.


----------



## ray benson (Jun 4, 2010)

2FatGuys said:


> There is only ONE formula for "Tonnage" of splitting: Area of piston x PSI / 2000. You can achieve 30 tons with a 5" cylinder at 3000PSI or a 6" cylinder at 2100PSI. Cylinder size alone doesn't determine it. PSI alone doesn't either. And GPM has ZERO bearing on tonnage!
> 
> Cycle speed is determine by cylinder extension volume, cylinder retraction volume, pump speed and engine RPM. Cylinder volumes are a product of diameter and stroke length. The cycle time has ZERO to do with tonnage.
> 
> But... I am willing to learn. Clue me in...



Hey, I think you got it. That Burdens tech page is pretty nice.


----------



## 2FatGuys (Jun 5, 2010)

ray benson said:


> Hey, I think you got it. That Burdens tech page is pretty nice.



No... I'm still clueless to how you think you could calculate splitting force using cylinder size and pump speed...

Teach me Master Yoda...


----------



## ray benson (Jun 5, 2010)

Burdens webpage - Tech Help has on the left side of the page Hydraulics, sub category Calculators, sub category Force & Speed. On that page are calculators for force and speed. Two separate calculators not one. Guess I wasn't clear. They also have a lot of other interesting info.
https://www.surpluscenter.com/techhelp.asp?catname=hydraulic


----------



## 2FatGuys (Jun 5, 2010)

ray benson said:


> Burdens webpage - Tech Help has on the left side of the page Hydraulics, sub category Calculators, sub category Force & Speed. On that page are calculators for force and speed. Two separate calculators not one. Guess I wasn't clear. They also have a lot of other interesting info.
> https://www.surpluscenter.com/techhelp.asp?catname=hydraulic



Ahhhh... now the light bulb is coming on.

Actually, the calculators they have are simplified versions of the spreadsheets I run.

I just wasn't seeing the connection in your comments to the table that was presented...


----------



## AKKAMAAN (Jun 5, 2010)

2FatGuys said:


> Ahhhh... now the light bulb is coming on.
> 
> Actually, the calculators they have are simplified versions of the spreadsheets I run.
> 
> I just wasn't seeing the connection in your comments to the table that was presented...



well...gotta be careful before judg'n to fast....LOL....
Love you 2FatGuys......be back w u l8er


----------



## 2FatGuys (Jun 5, 2010)

AKKAMAAN said:


> well...gotta be careful before judg'n to fast....LOL....
> Love you 2FatGuys......be back w u l8er



No judging... just need some 'splaining...

Trust me.. I got the hydraulic principles down pat... LOL


----------



## AKKAMAAN (Jun 5, 2010)

2FatGuys said:


> No judging... just need some 'splaining...
> 
> Trust me.. I got the hydraulic principles down pat... LOL



Believe ya...wud just be inneresting to hear your inner thots about'em principles.....


----------



## AKKAMAAN (Jun 5, 2010)

2FatGuys said:


> No judging... just need some 'splaining...
> 
> Trust me.. I got the hydraulic principles down pat... LOL


Would be cool to hear some of your thoughts on them principles...


BTW...what's your engineering credentials you mentioned earlier....??
I have a construction degree and a forest engineer degree....also a forestry/logging teacher degree...taught logging and forestry for almost 25 years...


----------



## Haywire Haywood (Jun 5, 2010)

2FatGuys said:


> Power (HP) increases speed and cycle time



Actually, all things being equal, engine RPM is the only thing that will (edit) decrease the cycle time.
A 9 hp engine turning a 16gpm pump at 3600rpm will give a faster cycle time than a 200 hp engine turning the same pump at 2000rpm.

Ian


----------



## Cambium (Jun 5, 2010)

It's not the ton that matters, its the cycle time. 

27 Ton has proved to me to be the max strength anyone needs. I had rock cement ELM it handled it like a champ! Honda Motor is probably another reason. 

And just to give you an idea what each peice of Elm almost looked like...






Pile of Elm.


----------



## Cambium (Jun 5, 2010)

P.S - And if I had to I would of course get a higher tonnage...Maybe 32 with a faster cycle time... But not less than 27. 27 seems to be "enough"


----------



## 2FatGuys (Jun 5, 2010)

Haywire Haywood said:


> Actually, all things being equal, engine RPM is the only thing that will increase the cycle time.
> 
> A 9 hp engine turning a 16gpm pump at 3600rpm will give a faster cycle time than a 200 hp engine turning the same pump at 2000rpm.
> 
> Ian



OK.. busted... in my haste to make the points I was making, I mistyped this sentence. It should have read: "Power (HP) increases speed and DECREASES cycle time, at the expense of fuel efficiency BY ALLOWING A LARGER PUMP TO REACH MAXIMUM PRESSURE WITHOUT BOGGING DOWN."

It would help if I went back and read it before posting. I'll fix it.

But you are making the same point I was attempting to make. In hydraulics, power allows the generation of fluid pressure at a given GPM. Increasing power just to increase speed means using a larger pump. It's impractical to try to use a 22GPM pump with a 2" cylinder so that you can try to approach the speeds necessary to use a Fiskars-like wedge. The smaller cylinder won't impart enough pressure at the wedge to have the same effect as swinging the Fiskars. I don't see how a fluid application of power can simulate a suplemented free fall and impact. The delivery of potential energy is completely different.


----------



## 2FatGuys (Jun 5, 2010)

AKKAMAAN said:


> Would be cool to hear some of your thoughts on them principles...
> 
> 
> BTW...what's your engineering credentials you mentioned earlier....??
> I have a construction degree and a forest engineer degree....also a forestry/logging teacher degree...taught logging and forestry for almost 25 years...



You just did... I'm waiting to hear how to make that Fiskars hydraulicly split 32" Hickory.

I'm not getting into a battle of shingles. I just want to hear how you would make it work.


----------



## Wood Doctor (Jun 5, 2010)

*Rate vs. Time*



Haywire Haywood said:


> Actually, all things being equal, engine RPM is the only thing that will increase the cycle time.
> 
> A 9 hp engine turning a 16gpm pump at 3600rpm will give a faster cycle time than a 200 hp engine turning the same pump at 2000rpm.
> 
> Ian


Ian, be careful of termnology. Increasing the cycle time means decreasing the rate (speed) at which the piston moves. When you decrease the cycle time, the rate (speed) increases. I understand what you are trying to say, but others may become confused and this has been a confusion factor in the past when discussed on our forum. Maybe it's a weakness of the English language.

The higher RPM simply drives the pump faster and forces more fluid through the cylinder and the hoses at a faster rate. However, if the resistance force becomes too great, the RPM of the engine drops while trying to maintain the force and the log may win the battle. Big motors can hold that RPM with larger resistance forces and little ones lose it sooner.

In my book, the ultimate effectiveness of a log splitter is how quickly it gets the job done for a given quantity of wood that you need to split. Sometimes the splitters with smaller cylinders and horsepower can get the job done faster than monsters with slow-moving cylinders--provided that they don't bog down.

Technique is also important, so we need to give some credit to the operator. I usually save the snarly crotchwood wood for last after the easier logs are split first. With experience, you can often tell in advance what logs and species are tougher than others. Wood dryness also has a lot to do with it along with dozens of other factors that rarely show up in books. Experience is most of the ball game.


----------



## AKKAMAAN (Jun 5, 2010)

Wood Doctor said:


> Ian, be careful of termnology. Increasing the cycle time means decreasing the rate (speed) at which the piston moves. When you decrease the cycle time, the rate (speed) increases. I understand what you are trying to say, but others may become confused and this has been a confusion factor in the past when discussed on our forum. Maybe it's a weakness of the English language.
> 
> The higher RPM simply drives the pump faster and forces more fluid through the cylinder and the hoses at a fater rate. Hopever, if the resistance force becomes too great, the RPM of the engine drops while trying to maintain the force and the log may win the battle. Big motors can hold that RPM with larger resistance forces and little ones lose it sooner.



This is why some small engine manufacturers have stopped using HP to rate engines, because torque is a more relevant number, when it comes to calculating force.....but basically both numbers live together in an eternal marriage...HP=Torque x RPM


----------



## Haywire Haywood (Jun 5, 2010)

Yep, I got the terminology backwards... LOL... But you know what I think I thought I said.


Ian


----------



## 2FatGuys (Jun 5, 2010)

AKKAMAAN said:


> This is why some small engine manufacturers have stopped using HP to rate engines, because torque is a more relevant number, when it comes to calculating force.....but basically both numbers live together in an eternal marriage...HP=Torque x RPM



Theoretical HP = (TorquexRPM)/5252

with the torque expressed in Ft-Lb...

And the engine manufacturer's didn't drop HP rating voluntarily. It was a result of them over rating engines and being sued over it in multiple cases.


----------



## AKKAMAAN (Jun 5, 2010)

2FatGuys said:


> You just did... I'm waiting to hear how to make that Fiskars hydraulicly split 32" Hickory.
> 
> I'm not getting into a battle of shingles. I just want to hear how you would make it work.


I think I'll start a new thread about it!!


----------



## richard1 (Mar 9, 2013)

*split wood in 8 pieces*

I have a firewood processor that has a 4 " cylinder on it. The manafacture stats it can split 24" wood. Whats your opinion.


----------



## dave_dj1 (Mar 9, 2013)

24" diameter or length?
If diameter, I would say without knowing all the specifics of your machine that it should be no problem. You may have to work around it but you can get it done.
If length, you need at least 24" throw.
I split butt ends that are easily 30" - 36" in diameter all the time. I believe I am putting out around 14 honest tons with my machine.
good luck,
dave


----------



## dave_376 (Mar 9, 2013)

leeave96 said:


> I was at TSC the other day and saw log splitters from 22 to 35 tons!
> 
> How many tons to you really need to split firewood?
> 
> ...



I don't have the answer for you but I can tell you that there are a lot of 12 ton splitters made in the 60's,70's,80's that split a lot of wood. I have a yard machine 27 ton splitter that I am happy with. It splits wood, that is what I need it to do. Before I purchased mine I used its sister splitter MTD 27ton with a Briggs engine (I have a Honda) it split a few cord of shagbark hickory and some really tough Cherry most of the wood was big ~ 36" diameter. It split it all, it wasn't super fast but it all got split. I can say that the only thing I* love* about my splitter is the Honda, it starts second pull after sitting out in the cold and it is really quite compared to the Briggs.

If I fount the TSC 22 ton on sale I would definitely buy it with out worrying about it not being able to split everything. With a little patience and repositioning the wood you should be able to split it, if not you can noodle it a bit and then split it the rest of the way.


----------



## walkerdogman85 (Mar 9, 2013)

dave_dj1 said:


> 24" diameter or length?
> If diameter, I would say without knowing all the specifics of your machine that it should be no problem. You may have to work around it but you can get it done.
> If length, you need at least 24" throw.
> I split butt ends that are easily 30" - 36" in diameter all the time. I believe I am putting out around 14 honest tons with my machine.
> ...



I agree I split some 30+" fresh cut hickory yesterday, it was my trial run on my home built splitter. 4" x30" cylinder with a 28 gpm pump running about 1800 rpm at 2000 psi split it all if it dirt I just repositioned it and it went with speed to! I plan on turning up psi at the valve and possibly running at a higher rpm but the 20 hp kohler is loud!!


----------



## DSS (Mar 9, 2013)

My splitter is 22 tons and will split anything I can lift. I don't think the ratings are standardized very well. 

This thread is 3 years old btw.


----------



## Dan_IN_MN (Mar 9, 2013)

One thing we found out if we stall out a splitter and there is a log stuck on the wedge is to take a chainsaw and being careful not to hit the wedge, cut slit in the log. That helps reduce the amount of force required. If it still doesn't move, cut the slit a bit deeper.


----------



## richard1 (Mar 10, 2013)

*24" diameter oak or elm*

I ment to say split 24" diameter oak or elm into 8 pieces with one push of the 4" hyd. cylinder.


----------



## dave_dj1 (Mar 10, 2013)

ahhh, that I don't know, seems like a lot to ask of a 4" cylinder.
check here: Hydraulic Cylinder Calculator

You get power from cylinder size, the bigger the cylinder the more power you will have given the same pressure as a smaller cylinder.


----------



## DSS (Mar 10, 2013)

Big difference between splitting oak and elm.


----------



## half (Mar 10, 2013)

*splitting*

Really all of us are splitting wood for home use, I have a 22t splitter and if anything is a bit tough I just turn it around and have a go from the other end. No biggy. So what you think you need as far as power goes, is up to the individual. Everyone has different ideas and splits different wood with different power requirements. Some guys always split hardwood and some of us usually split softwood, because that;s the major type that is available in your area. some guys split dry, some green.Its just what you need for your area, to get the job done


----------



## woodchuck357 (Mar 10, 2013)

*When splitting, diameter is not relevant, lenght of round makes a difference*

diameter makes a lot of difference in getting the round to the splitter and how many times it has to be handled. 

Unless you are trying to split the whole round in one pass.:msp_tongue:


----------

