# TreeCo, here is your Conehead lab report



## Koa Man (Feb 21, 2006)

I mentioned on another thread that Dynamic had an independent lab test the efficiency of the conehead design vs disc and drum chippers. TreeCo asked if that report could be released to the public. Here is the test results.

The following information is taken from the results of an independent study conducted by Central Michigan University's Dept. of Engineering. They did both lab and field analysis to compare the 4 different methods of chipping.

Efficiency:
Cone-Head and Discone are: 62% and 74% better than disc.
102% to 117% better than drum.

Fuel consumption, tons per gallon:
Cone Head 3.6
Discone 3.2
Drum 1.4
Disc 0.7

Conclusion of study:
Both the Discone and Cone-Head perform significantly better than the competition in all aspects. Theoretical results support both Discone and Cone-Head advantages of a) Variable radius-more cutting force with equal torque. b) Oblique (compound) angle is more efficient.


----------



## Koa Man (Feb 21, 2006)

I don't know how they are gauging efficiency or anything else. All I did was type in what was on the report that I got. I don't think that tons per gallon was the sole criteria that the 62% more efficiency was based on. I did not get the full lab report, only the highlights and the conclusion that CMU 's Engineering Dept came up with.


----------



## JamesTX (Feb 21, 2006)

If you're measuring efficiency, shouldn't there be some sort of time aspect involved (i.e. tons per hour?).


----------



## TreeJunkie (Feb 21, 2006)

All seems skewed to me much like the comparison dynamic made to me....

The time i demoed the DC-55 the salesman was telling me how they had tested that machine vs. a vermeer 1250(from a rental yard) and another chipper(can't remember the brand/model) in a head to head chip off.....Guess who won.....It's a no brainer....You can't compare a 39k, 140hp, 15" DC-55 to a 28K, 87hp, 12" machine.....I got a good chuckle of the sales pitch....I guess they didn't fig i had a clue about other chippers......


----------



## Koa Man (Feb 22, 2006)

OK, I now got the full report from Dynamic. It is 15 pages so don't expect me to type it all here. The study was done by CMU's Dept of Engineering, by David Pape, PhD, Professor of Mechanical Engineering. The chippers involved in the test were a Vermeer 1250 w/100 hp, a Morbark (model not specified) w/86 hp, a Cone Head 510 w/185 hp and a DC55 w/130 hp. Before you stop reading and say unfair hp advantage, all the raw data was normalized by the hp ranking of each machine. Wood used was poplar with a 12% moisture content and all wood was measured and weighted before chipping. Each machine had autofeed and was run approx. 10 min. with a steady diet of logs with a dia. of 11 inches.

The Vermeer chipped 2680 lbs. of wood in 8.67 mins. and used 1.8 gal of fuel
The Morbark chipped 2620 lbs. of wood in 12.25 mins. and used .9 gal of fuel
The 510 chipped 9620 lbs. of wood in 10.33 mins. and used 1.3 gal of fuel
The DC55 chipped 6980 lbs. of wood in 9.93 mins. and used 1.1 gal of fuel

Normalizing the raw data, the study showed the following chipping rates per 100hp. The first number is tons per hour and the 2nd tons per 100 hp.

Vermeer 9.3 1.3
Morbark 7.5 1.5
510 15.1 2.6
DC55 16.2 2.7

Wood chipping fuel measurements, first number is gal per hr per 100hp and the second is tons per gallon.

Vermeer 12.6 0.7
Morbark 5.3 1.4
510 4.2 3.6
DC55 5.0 3.2

Machine ranking based on normalized chipping rate.
1. DC55 @ 16.2 tons per hour per 100 hp
2. 510 @ 15.1
3. Vermeer @ 9.3
4. Morbark @ 7.5

Machine ranking based on normalized fuel consumption.
1. 510 @ 3.6 tons per gallon
2. DC55 @ 3.2
3. Morbark @ 1.4
4. Vermeer @ 0.7

There is a lot of other info in the full report, equations and other engineering stuff that I don't understand and not about to learn. I am done typing.


----------



## Stumper (Feb 22, 2006)

Thanks Koa. That is scientific and clearly shows that the Dynamics are more efficient......and I hate those kinds of tests. I hate them not because they aren't accurate or truthful but because the facts they generate aren't necessarily relevant. For my use it would be much more relevant to know how much brush 6 inches in diameter or less at the butt can be fed in 4 hours by one man, 2 men, 3 men. What is fuel consumption like whan one man is feeding brushy materiall for an extended period? How do the machines handle in towing. etc. I have no doubt that the Coneheads are great machines and that they offer superior performance in handling large quantities of material but normalized results showing performance on standardized material per hundred horsepower don't really give practical normal use results in my opinion. If I were chipping a steady diet of 11" material my horsepower and design needs could/almost certainly would be different from my real world operation where I chip mostly sub 4inch diameter prunings and a few 6inch diameter limbs with an occassioinall decayed 10 inch diameter piece.


----------



## Stumper (Feb 22, 2006)

Dan, Who is Mr. Chen?


----------



## Koa Man (Feb 22, 2006)

Dan,
I agree that a chipper chipping logs at their maximum rated capacity, compared to one using 2/3 to 3/4 of their capacity, would not be a really fair comparision, even though the tests were normalized. How the chippers were selected was not disclosed in the full report. Maybe a future test could be run with let's say a BC1800, a 510, a 18X, a 2400 and a 280 with similar hp. 

I do know that my DC50 chipped some 10 inch hardwood logs, 2 ft. long without skipping beat, and the same branches in 6 inch and smaller dia., about 6 ft. long both without the autofeed kicking on.

I would be interested in what Prof. Chen has to say on the matter.


----------



## TreeJunkie (Feb 22, 2006)

Dan, 

Great points. I'm in complete agreement. 

I was informed that the vermeer was rented from a rental yard. Keep in mind the machine was used not to overlook that in my experiences w/ rental yards most machines typically come equipped w/ dull ass blades. 

For some reason i hardly doubt dynamic was using a worn out machine or dull blades.....

These kind of tests are exactly why i wouldn't buy anything dynamic sells.....I don't think you'll see the major players coming out w/ crazy claims like this.....


----------



## chaikwa (Feb 22, 2006)

I do a fair amount of welding work for a large tree company that uses Morbark, Vermeer, Bandit and Conehead chippers. From talking to the guys using these machines as well as the owner, and from working on them myself, here's MY take, (for what it's worth!).

The Morbarks are somewhat slow, loud, suck fuel, but they hardly ever break anything. The Vermeer is equally hated by all the guys and the owner, sucks a fair amount of fuel and is now sitting in the corner as a backup unit. The Bandits are the most liked. Not exceptionally loud, relatively fast, are somewhat better on fuel, but break stupid little aggravating components that won't actually make you stop using the machines but make you tie things together with a bungee cord until the welder, (me!), can get there to fix it. The Conehead is now sold, but it was a real good machine. Easy on fuel, chipped like crazy and rarely broke anything major. BUT, when something DID break, customer service from the factory was less than satisfying and getting technical information or an actual PART was next to impossible. Even return phone calls were hard to get at times, thus the reason it was sold. 

There's MY 2 cents worth, take it for what it's worth!

chaikwa.


----------



## Newfie (Mar 1, 2006)

And where is Bandit's scientific study to support there claims? Not that I really give a sh!t, because this whole thing has become rather childish, but if we're going to question claims about performance, lets pony up some proof.


:monkey:


----------



## Mijolnir (Mar 1, 2006)

How unusuall. :welcome: 
Jerry Morrey running down another companies equipment. how quaint.
at least cone head appear to be attempting some sort of backup to their claims.



> I contacted Bandit Industries and let them know that salesmen are presenting numbers that have obvious flaws and appear to be the product of biased testing procedures.



I wonder why Bandit? Do you have some affiliation with that company, or a sales agreement?


----------



## Mijolnir (Mar 1, 2006)

TreeCo said:


> Who is asking?



Google is your friend brother.

And seen as you had the figure's explained to you at length from the factory less than a week ago, you dont need my help eh?

Now answer the question - whats your motivation for bringing Bandit into this? You seem to have some vested interest here. I'm sure its not just philanthropy on your part, or you felt sorry for poor old bandit.

Interesting that they should have so many machines sat in their yard though - could be that their struggling to sell them? I did hear that Morbark, Conehead and Woodsman are struggling to keep up with demand...


----------



## Koa Man (Mar 2, 2006)

I do know from first hand experience that Woodsman and Conehead have about a 2 month wait from order to completion, but they are small companies and don't build dozens per month like Bandit. I think Bandits have too many bells and whistles on their machines. I just want an efficient chipping machine and both my Woodsman 18X and Discone 50 do it rather well. As far as fuel economy, I don't have scientific data, but the Discone 50 seems to be rather miserly on fuel to me. Just going by how often I need to top off the tank. I would love to have an 18 inch capacity Discone.


----------



## Mijolnir (Mar 2, 2006)

TreeCo said:


> As far as my motivation...........
> 
> Google it!
> 
> Dan



Could'nt find your motivation on Google. So tell me why exactly you felt that you had to squeel to bandit?


----------



## priest (Jul 17, 2006)

It's been 4 months since this heated thread was last mentioned, and I was just wondering if any pertinent information had surfaced on the Cone-heads in comparison to other brands. 

I was a little turned-off to the whole Dynamic thing by the doubt in the accuracy of their performance reports. I'd love to hear from real, unbiased owners of these machines, since lab tests are apparently the worst way to gather real data. 

P.S. -Just a tree guy looking for a good chipper.


----------



## Koa Man (Jul 17, 2006)

Well I am still satisfied with the performance of the DC50 and still think the fuel economy on it is great. A friend of mine who bought a new 10 inch cap. Morbark chipper because they would finance him and I don't do financing, observed the DC50 chipping for about an hour. He said he wants to take his machine back to the dealer and buy the DC50. Of course, it is too late since he has used the Morbark for over 3 weeks. 

Ultimately the final decision will be yours. Look at and try the different machines. I don't try to encourage anyone to buy a particular machine anymore.


----------



## BlueRidgeMark (Jul 17, 2006)

*From an engineer's perspective...*

I'm not a tree guy, I'm an engineer. I have no dog in this hunt. Don't know a Morit from a Bandbark. Folks who've followed a few off topic threads know that Treeco & I have clashed a few times, so I'm not commenting to stick up for a buddy. (Though I do genuinely appreciate some advice he's given me from time to time.)

That said, based solely on what's presented here, Treeco is absolutely right. This test is not a valid comparison at all. Normalized or not, you can't get a valid comparison between machines that are:


Both well over and well under their rated capacity.
Brand new from the manufacturer and rented machines of unknown age and maintenance levels. (e.g., dull blades vs. sharp, etc.)

Either one of those would invalidate the test. Both together make this completely meaningless.

AND, as someone else pointed out, it's not a very complete test. One type of chipping only, and one that is probably not representative of the majority of the work you guys do. Not very useful.

But that doesn't necessarily mean that this is an evil plot by the manufacturer. (Of course they will take this ball and try to run with it.) More likely, the test was concocted by some grad student, who should have gotten a failing grade on it.

But he probably didn't. :bang: As I look at studies done in my field and many others, one thing is abudantly clear - people who know how to craft careful studies that eliminate or control variables, and deliver relevant, real world results, are a *very* small minority. Most "studies" and "tests" you read about are just plain nonsense. Consumer Reports come to mind...

And as for getting Bandit's take on it, well *WHY NOT* for crying out loud???? They are a respected manufacturer in this line - their opinion of the test is relevant, as is the opinion of other manufacturers. "Squeal to Bandit"??? *What is that?* Get off the playground and join the adult world!


----------



## BlueRidgeMark (Jul 17, 2006)

Like I said, I don't have a dog in this hunt. What I DO have is an intense loathing of "studies" and "tests" that do not control variables properly, and do not relate to real world results. Junk science, in other words. Alas, it's the norm, rather than the exception, and great and many are the conclusions that are drawn from such flawed work. Most of this can be attributed to incompetence, rather than evil intent. Remember Whethern's First Law of Non-Paranoia:

*Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by simple stupidity.*

(Applies the the realm of politics, too!  )

Of course, it's not surprising that a manufacturer would take such results and trumpet them to high heaven.


But Dan, concerning your problem # 1, is it really fair to blame an entire company for the bad conduct of ONE dealer? Shades of Sappiness!


----------



## BlueRidgeMark (Jul 17, 2006)

TreeCo said:


> How about two bad dealers? Or three?




Depends. How many dealers are there? 6? or 600? Or 6,000?


Depends. How much control does the manufacturer exercise over their dealers? If zero, then you can't blame the manufacturer for bad dealers, no matter WHAT the percentage.* 

Of course, if the percentage is high, the question will become moot and the problem will be taken care of. Probably by a bankruptcy court. 

If the problem is NOT being taken care of by the market, you are probably missing some data about the size of the problem. IOW, even if YOUR experience with Brand X dealers is 100% bad, but Brand X remains the industry leader year after year, decade after decade, they probably do a pretty good job overall, and your experience is because:


You just happen to live in a place where all the dealers are crap and there is little local competition.
You have had one bad experience with one dealer and are so stupid you think that makes all dealers bad.
You are actually the source of the problem and have not recognized that fact.


All of this is hypothetical of course - when I say "you" I am speaking non-specifically. It's just easier than typing "a person who has formed a bad opinion of a particular manufacturer" each time. 






*Of course, if they exercise no control, that may be reason enough to go elsewhere.


----------



## jazak (Jul 17, 2006)

My buddy just bought a Discone 570 here are the specs:

*Discone 570:*
H.P. - 325HP JD
Diameter Capacity- 22" 
Opening- 35" X 22"
Standard Weight- 16,4010 lbs.
Length- 17' 8"
Width- 8'
Torsion Axle- 8,000 lbs. Tandem
Swivel Discharge- 360o
Channel Frame- Reinforced 6" H.D.

He also owns a Brush Bandit 1890:

*BB 1890:*
H.P. - 110-140hp CAT, Cummins, Perkins, or JD 
Diameter Capacity- 18" 
Opening- 10 5/8" x 20"
Standard Weight- 9,250lb.s
Length- 15' 11" 
Width- 7' 10"
Torsion Axle- 10,000lb.s
Swivel Discharge- 360o
Channel Frame- 6" w/channel cross members

*Morbark 18":*
H.P. - 130-225hp CAT, JD or Perkins (Cummins been taken away)
Diameter Capacity- 18" 
Opening- 31" x 20"
Standard Weight- 11,700lb.s
Length- 17' 6"
Width- 8' 2"
Torsion Axle- 10,000lb.s
Swivel Discharge- 360o 
Channel Frame- 6" and supports

I have used all of the above and have to say there is little difference between the Discone, Morbark, and BB. The discone is bigger then the other and chips a little better, the morbark is easier to get into places and out performs the BB. They all use about the same on gas the Discone a little better but not by much. Discone sales representatives state that their chipper doesn't take as much abuse while chipping as the other brands because of how they have supperted the system on springs, ext. That is true about the springs but when I have used it it shook just about as hard as the Morbark. The power is much bigger but is reallyundneeded due to the fact that a 150hp or 200hp unit can chip just as good as 350hp unit. This machine does out perform other machines in the following: chipping smoother, uses a little less fuel but NOT by 60 something percent, maybe by 15-30 percent. For doing residentail or commercail work I would have to say this machine is overkill and a waste of money. If I was to rank the machines it would come out like this:

1st Discone 570
2nd Morbark 18
3rd BB 1890

BTW I will soon be testing the Discone model 55 vs. Morbark 1 vs. BB 1590 When I do I wil post the differences and pros and cons of each machine this next itme I will go into more depth and show more statistics. Also here are some pics of the machines.


----------



## Bigstumps (Jul 17, 2006)

opcorn: opcorn: opcorn:


----------



## jazak (Jul 17, 2006)

Bigstumps said:


> opcorn: opcorn: opcorn:



So do you like it?


----------



## BlueRidgeMark (Jul 17, 2006)

TreeCo said:


> Mark it's about the data. I gave two reasons but they do not carry equal weight. The dealers comments are immaterial to me.




Hmmmm. You sure _sounded_ like it mattered. 



TreeCo said:


> I've also sent emails with links to this thread to the University and as of now they have not entered into the discussion or even return emails.




Dan, get serious. You don't expect a university to get into an Internet forum peeing match, do you?  

If I had spare time, I'd like to see a copy of the report, if only to tear it apart. 


One of the bad things about such sloppy studies is that they tend to splatter mud on the subject. For example, if someone reads that report and recognizes that its conclusions are not supported by the evidence given, they might then conclude that the conclusions are entirely false. That might be true, but it might not. A good study might well show the same results, but such a report will find that the water has been muddied, and might not be given the weight it deserves.

Ah dunno.


----------



## bcorradi (Jul 17, 2006)

TreeCo said:


> I'd like to point out that this thread arose from another thread were someone was asking about chippers.


Are you sure you weren't meaning to use the word "where" here?


----------



## Lakeside53 (Jul 17, 2006)

Treeco, surely you didnt make a typo???


----------



## priest (Jul 18, 2006)

Thanks for the comments, though I'm still almost as foggy on this subject as ever. 
I'm demo-ing a Vermeer BC-1000 tomorrow with the intent to buy if it meets my needs. I've heard some testimony both for and against these machines. A few people I know greatly prefer Morbark, but this is a few thousand cheaper than a new Morbark, and I figure I can always trade up in a year or so if it sucks (got 7 months of warranty left). 

It is through the Vermeer dealer and was a rental machine (rented to the DOT only for 7 months, 300 hours). He is asking 21K. 

I think I'll eventually want a larger chipper, so in a couple of years when I'm maybe running two solid crews I'll re-evaluate and may consider a Dynamic if they have proven themselves at that time.

Thanks again for your input.

Nate


----------



## BlueRidgeMark (Jul 18, 2006)

TreeCo said:


> I don't pay much attention to what dealers say.




Noooo problem. Just razzin' you. 




TreeCo said:


> I have been interested in the conehead design since seeing it first advertised 5 or 6 years ago.
> I was really disappointed to see what looks like some really bad science being used to promote the product when I read the report.




Yeah, it looks interesting. I can understand how you feel about it. It looked good, but then they pull some, uh, less than honorable stuff, and it also calls their claims into question. I mean, if they have VALID claims, they sure don't need to be touting bogus claims.

Sure would be nice to see some bright young grad student (maybe in a forestry or arborist program?) do a valid study on this. Fuel isn't getting any cheaper, and it would be nice to see what the real efficiencies are in real-world conditions. It would be a good challenge to lay out a testing protocol that simulates actual usage, and keeps comparisons on an apples to apples basis. It would actually make for a good project for a paper. Maybe not enough for a thesis, but still...


----------



## Bigstumps (Jul 19, 2006)

So you think Central Michigan will do my taxes???? They look to have some creative thinking!! :jester:


----------

