# Timberwolf Verses Super Split process time



## LoggerDoug (Feb 5, 2010)

How long does it take to split a cord of wood already cut to no more then 25" in length with a timberwolf tw-p1 which is comparable to the sshd super split, both being horizontal splitters.

any help 

It does not have to be a timberwolf, it could be any hydraulic with a 13 second cycle time.

anyone?

I can do it between 15 and 20 minutes with the super split. I have the SSHD but all super splits have 2.5 second cycle time, no matter what model.


----------



## LoggerDoug (Feb 5, 2010)

> for speed ... Super Split will smoke just about any splitter
> 
> question is do you want to operate that fast?
> personally would not want a piece of gear, that near my hands operating that fast.
> ...



Thx for the input 046, I am writing an evaluation on the two and for comparison reasons I would like to know if anyone has timed how long it took with the 13 second cycle time, but I suppose I could do the math, of course not everyone works at the same rate.

.


----------



## wdchuck (Feb 5, 2010)

I'd like to see the setup that allows 4cord an hour, with one man.

Elm, with its cross grain, will cost more time, so will gnarly and crotch wood.


----------



## LoggerDoug (Feb 5, 2010)

wdchuck said:


> I'd like to see the setup that allows 4cord an hour, with one man.
> 
> Elm, with its cross grain, will cost more time, so will gnarly and crotch wood.



I don't have elm here. Mostly just beach, oak, maple, and birch. I do have some narly knotted crotch stuff and it blows right threw it. Non of the wood I have here has challenged it yet.


----------



## wkpoor (Feb 5, 2010)

About the only real way to compare would be to have the SS and a hydraulic splitter working in the same pile for a couple hours with a good cross section of wood types sizes and grain patterns. 
My guess is obviously the SS would be way faster in the straight grain but maybe slower in the stringy Elm and crotches.
22GPM on a 3" cylinder would be very close to the same speed and power of a SS.


----------



## wdchuck (Feb 5, 2010)

Local competitor and I did the math. He averages 250 pieces in a 1/3 cord. 

750 pieces in a cord....for example

3second cycle time....

20 pieces per minute...not possible in this scenario.

750 divided by 20 equals 38 minutes. 


High speed volume requires multi-way wedge.


----------



## triptester (Feb 5, 2010)

The Super Split will have an advantage over a hydraulic splitter to a point. A fast cycle hydraulic splitter with a 4-way wedge can be just as fast with less operator effort. The Super Split due to it's design is limited in the size of wood it can split.
A hydraulic splitter in a similar price range can be equipted with log lift which would allow greater capacity. The hydraulic may not be as fast as the SS but it is more versatile.
I remember reading about an AS member with a firewood business that uses both. The hydraulic for big wood and the SS for small wood and resplits.


----------



## STLfirewood (Feb 5, 2010)

Super splitter is not limited to block size. It's limited to what you can lift. It will split whatever you out up there. We loaded 30" plus elm on mine with a front loader. It split them. It didn't like it but split them anyway. When your going for production the SS is the best machine hands down. I can get over 2 cord on a tank of fuel. It's not even a gallon. My cords have about 960 pieces in them. There is a reason you don't see SS for sale used. When people buy them they keep them.


Scott


----------



## sawinredneck (Feb 5, 2010)

The SS is an awsome machine for sure, I'm not going to bad mouth it, but you are not comparing apples to apples here.
A 3 second cycle time will kill a 13 second cycle time, but you have to factor in the wood.
I want a SS but I deal with variates of wood I don't think it will like. If all I did was Oak, Walnut etc, nice straight grain wood, no problem. But you start getting into Hedge and Elm it's going to take longer than the 3 second time, you will have to hit it multiple times to get it to split and even then you may have to throw a lot of wood off. Even with a hyd. splitter you have to choose your battles. Is it worth spending twenty min jacking around with it or kick it off and get wood split? I would think you would have to make that choice more often with the SS on gnarly wood.
Just my thoughts.


----------



## HARRY BARKER (Feb 5, 2010)

sawinredneck said:


> The SS is an awsome machine for sure, I'm not going to bad mouth it, but you are not comparing apples to apples here.
> A 3 second cycle time will kill a 13 second cycle time, but you have to factor in the wood.
> I want a SS but I deal with variates of wood I don't think it will like. If all I did was Oak, Walnut etc, nice straight grain wood, no problem. But you start getting into Hedge and Elm it's going to take longer than the 3 second time, you will have to hit it multiple times to get it to split and even then you may have to throw a lot of wood off. Even with a hyd. splitter you have to choose your battles. Is it worth spending twenty min jacking around with it or kick it off and get wood split? I would think you would have to make that choice more often with the SS on gnarly wood.
> Just my thoughts.


hmmmm........ if you had a ss with a sharp wedge i dont think you would be saying that.


----------



## bigden (Feb 5, 2010)

*tw-p1*

tw-p1 with 4 way is faster than handling a stick:greenchainsaw: of wood four times to get the same results come on guys don't give into the hip faster is not always the answer when it comes to a 4 way. 4 ways are always faster and the least you have to put your hands on the wood is always less labor. labor =money


----------



## sawinredneck (Feb 5, 2010)

Play with some Hedge and Siberian Elm then get back to me.


----------



## STLfirewood (Feb 5, 2010)

4-way or not I would split a lot more wood with a SS then a TW-1 or TW-2 in the same amount of time. Might be more work but it would be faster. Ever see anyone take a drink of any kind of beverage while working a SS. You see that and people sitting on chairs while working hydraulic splitters. I'm not saying that Timberwolfe doesn't make a good product because they do. Like Redneck said if a block doesn;t want to split kick it to the side and get another. Why waste 5 minutes to split a block when you could have split 5-10 in the same time.

Scott


----------



## wkpoor (Feb 5, 2010)

One thing I can't figure out is I have never heard of or read of anyone that wasn't delighted with their SS. So why hasn't the SS (Kenetic energy splitter)nearly replaced the hydraulic splitter? I really want to try one but won't buy one till I try it first. Anybody in central Ohio have one?


----------



## CUCV (Feb 5, 2010)

How many cords a day can you do at 15-20 min a cord? Since I do 16" wood and split it small I haven't been able to get thru that much wood that fast. I've done a 16" cord in just over a half hour but I can constantly do 8 cord a day.
I split a ton of elm last year with the SS, yes its slower but does just fine, I quartered most of it with the saw just to lift it. Most 13 sec. hydraulic splitters won't have 13 sec. cycle time in elm when they kick down to 2.5gpm.

I can't wait to get a 4 way on my SS!

This is a little video of my SS.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoIkEBKmQ5k


----------



## AKKAMAAN (Feb 6, 2010)

CUCV said:


> This is a little video of my SS.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoIkEBKmQ5k



Great video and good work splitting!


Q's and A's:
Stalling? NO!
Overheating? NO!
Leaking? NO!
Troubleshooting? NO!
Fill fuel every now and then? NO!
Have to wait for splitter to get done?? NO!
Have to deal with "Speeco" warranty claims? NO!
Any real competitors on the one way wedge splitter market? NO!

Curious about a 4 way wedge SS? Oh yea!

What is best alternative for the money? 49$ plus change for a Fiskars SS!!

opcorn:


----------



## m44 (Feb 6, 2010)

Super splitters are awesome, the guy I cut would with bought one. He kept the hydrailic for big stuff we never bother to use it the ss can go through it fine.


----------



## LoggerDoug (Feb 7, 2010)

Any of you guys have the super split that you modified with a hitch to tow behind an ATV? 

If so, got any pics so I can see your craftsmanship?


----------



## brushbandit (Feb 7, 2010)

CUCV said:


> How many cords a day can you do at 15-20 min a cord? Since I do 16" wood and split it small I haven't been able to get thru that much wood that fast. I've done a 16" cord in just over a half hour but I can constantly do 8 cord a day.
> I split a ton of elm last year with the SS, yes its slower but does just fine, I quartered most of it with the saw just to lift it. Most 13 sec. hydraulic splitters won't have 13 sec. cycle time in elm when they kick down to 2.5gpm.
> 
> I can't wait to get a 4 way on my SS!
> ...



The super split looks great if all your wood is straight 16"-18" dia logs. On second thought maybe it isn't so good. I can turn those logs into firewood with one pass on my TW-5 with a 6-way wedge. Let's see, one 9 second pass or five 3.5 second passes. I'll stick with my TW-5 with a log lift, especially for those 28" dia. Oak logs.


----------



## LoggerDoug (Feb 7, 2010)

brushbandit said:


> The super split looks great if all your wood is straight 16"-18" dia logs. On second thought maybe it isn't so good. I can turn those logs into firewood with one pass on my TW-5 with a 6-way wedge. Let's see, one 9 second pass or five 3.5 second passes. I'll stick with my TW-5 with a log lift, especially for those 28" dia. Oak logs.



we are talking about similar splitters in the two series. The TW-5 is over $6000. and it's a 10 second cycle as advertised on the timberwolfs web site not 9, and the super split is 2.5 seconds as advertised on super splits web site not 3.5 not many guys on here are buying a tw-5, I don't think.


----------



## HARRY BARKER (Feb 7, 2010)

brushbandit said:


> The super split looks great if all your wood is straight 16"-18" dia logs.



HAHAHAHAHA.......obviously you havent run one.


----------



## brushbandit (Feb 7, 2010)

HARRY BARKER said:


> HAHAHAHAHA.......obviously you havent run one.



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA..........I have run one, great for 16"-18" straight wood and big wood thats been quartered up on the TW-5. Like I said I'll stick with the TW-5 and a multi-wedge.


----------



## HARRY BARKER (Feb 7, 2010)

brushbandit said:


> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA..........I have run one, great for 16"-18" straight wood and big wood thats been quartered up on the TW-5. Like I said I'll stick with the TW-5 and a multi-wedge.


ok then.im gettin a TW-5 tatoo


----------



## brushbandit (Feb 7, 2010)

HARRY BARKER said:


> ok then.im gettin a TW-5 tatoo



No, it's not that good. I'd go with the naked lady.


----------



## brushbandit (Feb 7, 2010)

LoggerDoug said:


> we are talking about similar splitters in the two series. The TW-5 is over $6000. and it's a 10 second cycle as advertised on the timberwolfs web site not 9, and the super split is 2.5 seconds as advertised on super splits web site not 3.5 not many guys on here are buying a tw-5, I don't think.



I guess it's not a fair comparison. How much is a super split?


----------



## HARRY BARKER (Feb 7, 2010)

brushbandit said:


> No, it's not that good. I'd go with the naked lady.


i been lookin,cant find one yet.


----------



## CUCV (Feb 7, 2010)

brushbandit said:


> I guess it's not a fair comparison. How much is a super split?



Paid $1500 for mine new, they are $3000 now.


----------



## CUCV (Feb 7, 2010)

TreeCo said:


> Yes that is a good video and I share your curiosity about a 4 way wedge.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't mind picking the logs back up when they are on the tray. The guy I bought my conveyor from had a 6 way setup on his supersplit. It was a very early superplit with a single high speed flywheel (3600 rpm) vs. the 2 slow speed flywheels.


----------



## Outriggers (Feb 8, 2010)

not many guys on here are buying a tw-5 said:


> I liked the V-twin, so I went with a tw-6, works good. My back likes it, 36" oak round no problem.


----------



## sloth9669 (Feb 8, 2010)

i got a tw5 with hydro log lift and 6 way wedge. i know for a fact the ss could not do what this machine can do. and the cycle time is down to around 7 sec


----------



## Blackjack1234 (Feb 8, 2010)

CUCV said:


> How many cords a day can you do at 15-20 min a cord? Since I do 16" wood and split it small I haven't been able to get thru that much wood that fast. I've done a 16" cord in just over a half hour but I can constantly do 8 cord a day.
> I split a ton of elm last year with the SS, yes its slower but does just fine, I quartered most of it with the saw just to lift it. Most 13 sec. hydraulic splitters won't have 13 sec. cycle time in elm when they kick down to 2.5gpm.
> 
> I can't wait to get a 4 way on my SS!
> ...




Nice video, fast splitting, but I personally don't want to run a splitter that has an automatic forward lever, I like my hands and fingers too much!!!


----------



## wkpoor (Feb 8, 2010)

sloth9669 said:


> i got a tw5 with hydro log lift and 6 way wedge. i know for a fact the ss could not do what this machine can do. and the cycle time is down to around 7 sec



I am by no means defending the SS but I'll bet it costs less than half the TW5. Heck a guy could write in here his processor will blow us all away but again that would be comparing a 30K+ machine to a 3-6K machine. As with anything it cost more to faster.


----------



## STLfirewood (Feb 8, 2010)

Blackjack1234 said:


> Nice video, fast splitting, but I personally don't want to run a splitter that has an automatic forward lever, I like my hands and fingers too much!!!



That is just the way it is adjusted. You can adjust it to stop as soon and you let go of the lever.

Scott


----------



## bigden (Feb 8, 2010)

*faster*

with the tw-p1 i can do the real tough wood plus the easy wood so being the tw-p1 is more versatile with the 4 way too, versatility is the key to all things good


----------



## STLfirewood (Feb 8, 2010)

ou an do the tough wood with the SS also. My friend has a tw-p2. It's a nice machine. He told me he can't wait until he saves enough money to buy a SS. Once he saw my machine work he wishes he would have bought a SS instead of the timberwolfe model he bought. Timberwolfe makes nice stuff. But overall a TW-1 or 2 can not keep up with a SS. That's just th truth. Some people might prefer the timberwolfe and there is nothing wrong with that. It's just not as fast.

Scott


----------



## epicklein22 (Feb 8, 2010)

wkpoor said:


> One thing I can't figure out is I have never heard of or read of anyone that wasn't delighted with their SS. *So why hasn't the SS (Kenetic energy splitter)nearly replaced the hydraulic splitter?* I really want to try one but won't buy one till I try it first. Anybody in central Ohio have one?



I bet it has to do with the fast cycle time being dangerous, lack of being able to tow it easily, and the price. It is hard to convince someone they need a 3k splitter when they can get the "top of the line" splitter at TSC for about half.

These are the treads that I like to see. At the moment, I'm planning to drop the dough for a SS in May. The thought of a 4 way timberwolf tw2 has me questioning my decision a little bit. Can the SS be all that is cracked up to be? I hope so because I want to own this thing for 20+ years.:biggrinbounce2:


----------



## sloth9669 (Feb 8, 2010)

wkpoor said:


> I am by no means defending the SS but I'll bet it costs less than half the TW5. Heck a guy could write in here his processor will blow us all away but again that would be comparing a 30K+ machine to a 3-6K machine. As with anything it cost more to faster.



whats a new ss go for ?


----------



## epicklein22 (Feb 8, 2010)

sloth9669 said:


> whats a new ss go for ?



http://www.supersplit.com/price.htm


----------



## LoggerDoug (Feb 9, 2010)

epicklein22 said:


> I bet it has to do with the fast cycle time being dangerous, lack of being able to tow it easily, and the price. It is hard to convince someone they need a 3k splitter when they can get the "top of the line" splitter at TSC for about half.
> 
> These are the treads that I like to see. At the moment, I'm planning to drop the dough for a SS in May. The thought of a 4 way timberwolf tw2 has me questioning my decision a little bit. Can the SS be all that is cracked up to be? I hope so because I want to own this thing for 20+ years.:biggrinbounce2:



Ok guys! Here’s the scoop….

I did a lot of homework (research) before buying my super split. My two most important criteria were production and durability. My brother in laws friend has an SS and my brother in law has a hydraulic (not a timberwolf). My brother in law is saving for an SS to replace his hydraulic. Not because it is useless but because of production. They sell wood as well as split and deliver it and need to get it done quickly in order to make it pay off. Of course, a hydraulic is going to do anything a SS can do and vise versa in my opinion. This thread was not to bash the timberwolf or the SS. I was doing an essay on log splitters and was comparing the two. I know how quick I can split with the SS because I own one. I was curious to know how quick a cord could be split with the timberwolf for my comparison. I based the comparison on production ease of use and noise. 

Just for FYI the super split won in the comparison based on production with the 10-second cycle time of the timberwolf and 2.5 second cycle of the SS.

The SS won the ease of use category for two reasons weight (the timberwolf weighs 475lbs compared to 445 of the Super split) and it is a little easier to move around by hand. The height comparison, the timberwolfs production table is 22" high and the SS's production table is 28" high. So the super split will be easier on the back for taller people like myself. 

Lastly, they were compared on noise. The 5.5 horsepower Honda runs at 78 decibels at full throttle, and the 6.0 horsepower Subaru robin engine runs at 72 decibels at full throttle (Subaru has more power but makes less noise). Neither are bad technically because it takes 85 decibels before you can suffer hearing loss..... http://www.dangerousdecibels.org/

As for durability, I could not find any super splits for sale anywhere and I found tons of hydraulics, including timberwolfs for sale. That is why I turned to this forum before I bought a splitter. I trust that the guys on this site are going to give me their honest feedback on the products they own and or have used. I made my decision to buy the super split based on all of you. The guys buying super splits are not selling them that does speak volumes to most people, including me about performance and durability. I even asked where I could get parts if it brakes, and no one knew because everyone said their machine had never broke yet.

This by no means was done to make the timberwolf look less stout. I have no doubt they will both be very capable with all types of wood. I personally want something fast because I have 25 cords of full length oak and beech logs down that need to be cut and split and I am very busy, so time is of the essence for me. I personally have no problem with hydraulic splitters, they just were not fast enough for me, which prompted me to look for others.


----------



## indiansprings (Feb 9, 2010)

Ah, you boys haven't seen cycle time yet, got to get back on the converted hay baler splitter, all I have to do is finish the wedge and install the motor, rest is complete, could get her up to around 80 strokes per minute if I could find someone to keep up, put plan on operating at around 10 strokes per minute.
Same principle as the super split, only going to be used for straight grained wood, no crotches or gnarly wood, hydraulic splitter can handle that. We've got her set up to be a belt drive, vs. pto, don't want the shock on the tractors pto system.


----------



## LoggerDoug (Feb 9, 2010)

TreeCo said:


> LoggerDoug there is more to splitting wood than cycle time. Only being able to split a piece two ways is a deal breaker for me. So what if the cycle time is faster......the operator having to pick up and re-split the pieces of larger rounds is a lot of work compared to a splitter that can bust the larger piece in four or six pieces on the first split.
> 
> Maybe you find so many more hydraulic splitters on the market because there are hardly any supersplitters out there? If 999 out of 1,000 splitter are hydraulic what would you expect to find?
> 
> ...




I agree Treeco. I just aint sure a super split or comparible hydraulic could take a 4 way wedge and get the job done without having to fuss with wood that jams. A bigger more powerful hydraulic I have no doubt will handle it, but I'm talking about the the SS and similar hydraulic. I want it to be some what mobile and don't want to fuss with a log lift. It's all good...


----------



## svon89 (Feb 9, 2010)

I own a timberwolf PW-1 and do like it. But I do think the cycle time is slow. I was talking to a friend the other day who's brother had a supersplitter and ended up selling it and bought a large, quick hydraulic. He liked the speed, but couldn't make enough time with it compared to the hydraulic with 6 way. I guess the hydraulic has something like a 6 second cycle time. 

I only cut and split for myself so I do not need to spend any more than I did. I do wish I could get the cycle time down on the PW-1, but it does the job for me. If I had it to do again, I would seriously consider a SS over hydraulic, but I haven't even owned the PW-1 for a year. I have many more to go before I have to get another.


----------



## Outriggers (Feb 9, 2010)

I think each has their pro's and cons, Ideal would be to have both. The ss would be great for straight grain rounds. The hydraulic for the uglier big stuff. I must admit I like fast but, a ss makes me cringe a little when I watch. Doug


----------



## bighead (Sep 11, 2010)

AKKAMAAN said:


> Great video and good work splitting!
> 
> 
> Q's and A's:
> ...



awesome job! btw, just curious, how old are you? what kind of wood were you splitting?


----------



## HARRY BARKER (Sep 11, 2010)

STLfirewood said:


> Super splitter is not limited to block size. It's limited to what you can lift. It will split whatever you out up there. We loaded 30" plus elm on mine with a front loader. It split them. It didn't like it but split them anyway. When your going for production the SS is the best machine hands down. I can get over 2 cord on a tank of fuel. It's not even a gallon. My cords have about 960 pieces in them. There is a reason you don't see SS for sale used. When people buy them they keep them.
> 
> 
> Scott


\
exactly!


----------



## AKKAMAAN (Sep 11, 2010)

bighead said:


> awesome job! btw, just curious, how old are you? what kind of wood were you splitting?



Are you referring to my Youtube video, using the Fiskars Super Splitter??

Anyway I'm 57 and a half now...LOL....I count every half year as a gift now....LOL......I actually have "refurbished" myself since I shot the video....I am 175-180lbs now....was 245-250lbs when I shot the video....prepping for retirement I suppose....hahahaha

The wood I am splitting is Douglas Fir, pretty straight grain, a few nuts but not bad at all.....My point is the bungee-rope....bundle smaller logs together and split like a large log....safe and simple....
Thanks for the credit...

Per A


----------



## HARRY BARKER (Sep 11, 2010)

AKKAMAAN said:


> Are you referring to my Youtube video, using the Fiskars Super Splitter??
> 
> Anyway I'm 57 and a half now...LOL....I count every half year as a gift now....LOL......I actually have "refurbished" myself since I shot the video....I am 175-180lbs now....was 245-250lbs when I shot the video....prepping for retirement I suppose....hahahaha
> 
> ...



wow! thats about 70lbs.....what happened?


----------



## AKKAMAAN (Sep 11, 2010)

HARRY BARKER said:


> wow! thats about 70lbs.....what happened?



eating less calories, and more good food....


----------



## bighead (Sep 11, 2010)

good for you AKKAMAAN!!


----------



## ropensaddle (Sep 11, 2010)

CUCV said:


> How many cords a day can you do at 15-20 min a cord? Since I do 16" wood and split it small I haven't been able to get thru that much wood that fast. I've done a 16" cord in just over a half hour but I can constantly do 8 cord a day.
> I split a ton of elm last year with the SS, yes its slower but does just fine, I quartered most of it with the saw just to lift it. Most 13 sec. hydraulic splitters won't have 13 sec. cycle time in elm when they kick down to 2.5gpm.
> 
> I can't wait to get a 4 way on my SS!
> ...



Nice but I have too much big stuff my tw 6 sure saves the back


----------



## angelo c (Sep 11, 2010)

here's my take, I own a SS and run a tw-6 for a friend when we get enough wood to sell. The two machines have no direct comparison much the same way a 200t and a 372 don't compare. When I get straight grained woods under 36" I take them home to split. When I get nasty knarly stumpy stuff it comes with me to the TW-6. I love my SS but the TW-6 is a beast. I can count on my hands how many times we could jam up the thing and that was because we were running the 4 way and not paying attention to reading grain and growth patterns. 

Money no option a TW-6 with a kubota power supply would be in my yard. There is nothing that the TW6 can't do that the SS can, but there are things the SS CAN'T do that the TW6 can. I can't get enough tree service cast aways to justify the expense of the TW-6 which is roughly 3 times the TW6 and that's the only draw back. The log lift is a major consideration for me too. A verticle hydrolic is useless to me and no comparison to the SS but I would rather have a SS then a TW-1 or similar scale machine. 

If I had a major firewood business to run. I would have 2 or three SS and those will outperform, production wise to the TW-6. It would also come down to amount of labor available as it I had the hands to run only one machine with one helper it favors the TW-6. Give me 6 guys and 3 SS and the TW-6 is in the garage sitting. 

both have their purpose and maximum efficiencies. As always, wood dictates tool not tool dictates wood.

Anyone that wants to run both side by side, come on down.


----------



## TreePointer (Sep 11, 2010)

Thanks for the comparison,_* angelo c*_!


----------



## ropensaddle (Sep 11, 2010)

angelo c said:


> here's my take, I own a SS and run a tw-6 for a friend when we get enough wood to sell. The two machines have no direct comparison much the same way a 200t and a 372 don't compare. When I get straight grained woods under 36" I take them home to split. When I get nasty knarly stumpy stuff it comes with me to the TW-6. I love my SS but the TW-6 is a beast. I can count on my hands how many times we could jam up the thing and that was because we were running the 4 way and not paying attention to reading grain and growth patterns.
> 
> Money no option a TW-6 with a kubota power supply would be in my yard. There is nothing that the TW6 can't do that the SS can, but there are things the SS CAN'T do that the TW6 can. I can't get enough tree service cast aways to justify the expense of the TW-6 which is roughly 3 times the TW6 and that's the only draw back. The log lift is a major consideration for me too. A verticle hydrolic is useless to me and no comparison to the SS but I would rather have a SS then a TW-1 or similar scale machine.
> 
> ...



Sounds very logical the tw6 you ran prolly has the table grate right? I should have got one but will probably just build one if I ever get a look at how they fasten! I have found three guys on the 6 and the machine still waits for you lol. A conveyor would be great too lol.


----------



## angelo c (Sep 11, 2010)

ropensaddle said:


> Sounds very logical the tw6 you ran prolly has the table grate right? I should have got one but will probably just build one if I ever get a look at how they fasten! I have found three guys on the 6 and the machine still waits for you lol. A conveyor would be great too lol.



Rope, 
yes it has a home made table. It really sucks to run the 6 w/o one. Picking up all those pieces that the 6 makes is crucial to any efficiency. and yes as well you really need a conveyer, it buries itself in wood and splitter trash in about 4 hours if not. 

I've got about 5 hours run time with Manatarms(AS-member) Built-Rite spltter and that is a tough choice between the TW-6 and the Built-Rite. The 6 will out grunt the BR but the BR is faster, as it should be with the single stage pump.


----------



## angelo c (Sep 12, 2010)

Rope, 
Let me know if you want me to take a photo of how he mounted the table. Pretty much just 4 bolts right to the main frame under the Beam.

A


----------



## ropensaddle (Sep 12, 2010)

angelo c said:


> Rope,
> yes it has a home made table. It really sucks to run the 6 w/o one. Picking up all those pieces that the 6 makes is crucial to any efficiency. and yes as well you really need a conveyer it buries itself in wood and splitter trash in about 4 hours if not.
> 
> I've got about 5 hours run time with Manatarms Built-Rite spltter and that is a tough choice between the TW-6 and the Built-Rite. The 6 will out grunt the BR but the BR is faster, as it should be with the single stage pump.



Yeah those look very well built but no dealers round here.


----------



## Outriggers (Sep 12, 2010)

angelo c said:


> Rope,
> yes it has a home made table. It really sucks to run the 6 w/o one. Picking up all those pieces that the 6 makes is crucial to any efficiency. and yes as well you really need a conveyer, it buries itself in wood and splitter trash in about 4 hours if not.



I have a TW6 with a 6-way wedge and table grate. It makes so much wood without a conveyer I am overwhelmed. Even by myself I have to stop and move wood. I use a trailer that is level with the table grate, no bending over. I have spent too many years bent over a splitter and lifting pieces. I figured a TW6 was a good value $, compared to a shot back. Doug


----------



## angelo c (Sep 12, 2010)

Outriggers said:


> I have a TW6 with a 6-way wedge and table grate. It makes so much wood without a conveyer I am overwhelmed. Even by myself I have to stop and move wood. I use a trailer that is level with the table grate, no bending over. I have spent too many years bent over a splitter and lifting pieces. I figured a TW6 was a good value $, compared to a shot back. Doug



Howdy neighbor !

Shoot me a PM when you need a hand with that TW-6. I'm down 202 in Neshanic. I spent many a Sunday morning at sky manor .

Angelo


----------



## Curlycherry1 (Sep 12, 2010)

I've done thousands of cords on a 4-way wood splitter with an ~8 second cycle and I have even done a good bunch of handle time one a Timberwolf HD processor. Now nothing beats the processor because it cuts and splits, but the recent work I have on a SS has convinced me, there is NOTHING faster at pure splitting. I am chewing through about 50-70 face cords of red oak and it is keeping me very tired. I am putting a full cord through it in less than an hour, no problem. Now I'll admit I am probably quicker at reading a piece of wood because of all the experience I have, but I am plunking the wood through that SS at an alarming rate. My old 8 second 4 way would need to be moved about every 30 minutes to keep into a pile like I am in now. This SS needs to be moved every 10-15 minutes. That tells me I am horking through the wood.

Including down time for loading logs to a stationary timberwolf processor, I bet a guy and a chainsaw and another on a SS could give a TW processor a run for its money, and do it for <1/10th the cost. Seriously, a SS is FAST. As with any splitter the size of the log will play a part in total process time/cord, but I am splitting stuff from 3" up to >24" and all manner of knots and crotch pieces. No problem with anything.

Edit to add, with a 4 way wedge or especially a 6-way wedge one has to be careful of big pieces that need to be resplit. There is nothing worse nor a bigger sign of poor quality control that wood that is just horked through a 4 way or 6 way and not looked at once it comes out the other side. My brother has captured a lot of customers from his competitiors because he takes care to resplit the big stuff. He now has two single wood splitters attached to his TW Processor for resplitting the stuff that needs to be whacked again. 

One key point that folks forget about or do not notice about the SS is there is little to no garbage. No slivers piling up around the wedge like there is with a 4 or 6 way wedge. It leads to nice clean wood with hardly any waste. My brother's processor yields about 10-15 bushels of junk in an 8-hour day.

Another thing about an SS is one does NOT simply keep whacking logs in half, and then half again, etc until it is all split. One takes a log and splits it in half, shoves half to the opposite side of the production table and then takes the half closest to them and starts peeling off single pieces the size they desire. This method, for me, yields a split piece of wood on average about every 2.3-3 seconds. I have been timing it. I lose 5-10 seconds for lifting pieces off the pile and onto the splitter table. The key is to keep the wood moving into the wedge one piece at a time, not trying to do 2 at once, that does not work.


----------



## ropensaddle (Sep 12, 2010)

Curlycherry1 said:


> I've done thousands of cords on a 4-way wood splitter with an ~8 second cycle and I have even done a good bunch of handle time one a Timberwolf HD processor. Now nothing beats the processor because it cuts and splits, but the recent work I have on a SS has convinced me, there is NOTHING faster at pure splitting. I am chewing through about 50-70 face cords of red oak and it is keeping me very tired. I am putting a full cord through it in less than an hour, no problem. Now I'll admit I am probably quicker at reading a piece of wood because of all the experience I have, but I am plunking the wood through that SS at an alarming rate. My old 8 second 4 way would need to be moved about every 30 minutes to keep into a pile like I am in now. This SS needs to be moved every 10-15 minutes. That tells me I am horking through the wood.
> 
> Including down time for loading logs to a stationary timberwolf processor, I bet a guy and a chainsaw and another on a SS could give a TW processor a run for its money, and do it for <1/10th the cost. Seriously, a SS is FAST. As with any splitter the size of the log will play a part in total process time/cord, but I am splitting stuff from 3" up to >24" and all manner of knots and crotch pieces. No problem with anything.



They do look awful fast but to me effort lifting is a huge consideration and the fact that I mostly am getting big stuff in the 36 + range and my back is sore from years of climbing and lifting chunks to put into a split dump! I want hydraulics lifting for me.


----------



## ptabaka (Sep 12, 2010)

*ss*

i have to say the ss is very fast and good lay out . but ill take my tw6 any day of the week just my 2 cents both good mach good luck


----------



## BPS. LLC (Sep 13, 2010)

I can't say anything about the SS because I don't have one, and have never used one. However, my TW-5 is fast enough. With me at the controls, it takes my son and a buddy to feed the splitter. The 6 way wedge doesn't give them much time to get the next piece on the lift. If you don't have a processor, with either of these splitters, I would think manpower is the key. I mess with my son all the time that I don't want to hear the splitter idle, waiting for wood. If you are splitting good wood, it doesn't need to be run at full throttle and really sips the fuel. I'm willing to bet both of these splitters are good machines. 

What sold me on the TW-5 was the log lift and the wedges. I can back my dump trailer right up to the table grate and it pushes the wood right on the trailer. If I'm not hauling it away, I let a pile build up and take the bobcat grapple and pile it up away from the splitter. But then I found that I am different than most in the fact that I don't stack my wood, preferring to handle it as little as possible.


----------



## BSD (Sep 13, 2010)

BPS said:


> What sold me on the TW-5 was the log lift and the wedges. I can back my dump trailer right up to the table grate and it pushes the wood right on the trailer.


 how do you think it would handle pushing splits up a 8-10' chute (say into the back of a dump truck). Basically I want to extend the table to a "U" shaped channel like a cement chute to get by having to load my truck without using a conveyor.


----------



## super3 (Sep 13, 2010)

I still want to see a vid of the OP splitting a cord in 15-20 minutes.


----------



## BPS. LLC (Sep 13, 2010)

BSD said:


> how do you think it would handle pushing splits up a 8-10' chute (say into the back of a dump truck). Basically I want to extend the table to a "U" shaped channel like a cement chute to get by having to load my truck without using a conveyor.



Not to hijack the thread here, but I can't see that working. All it takes is one piece catching a little bit and jamming everything up. For example, if I am splitting into a pile and it begins to cover the table, it either pushes the split pieces to the side, or will actually push the splitter forward if the weight of the pile is too great. Since the grate and the trailer bed are nearly flush, I have to stack the wood once it starts jamming up. It will not "pile" itself up on the trailer. I would love to have a conveyor, or have an area that I could excavate to drop my trailer down several feet. I am fortunate to have a bobcat with a grapple bucket. If I didn't have that and a son, I don't think I would do wood!

Your chute would work great if your splitter was elevated and the chute could be sloped down to a trailer. But to load a dump truck, you would almost need some help from mother nature and retaining wall of some sort to get the height.


----------



## sawkiller (Sep 13, 2010)

I recently built a 4-way wedge for the splitter we made a few years ago for use on the back of the tractor. Last friday I worked it as hard as I could by myself and split about 1 1/3 cord in an hour and a half. Of course I was loading the pieces in the truck and trailer as they came off also. Either way relating this to the topic this was a hickory tree that was about 22" in diameter and stringy as all get out and there is no way I would have wanted to lift these rounds onto a super split or any other splitter for that matter.


----------



## ropensaddle (Sep 13, 2010)

BPS said:


> Not to hijack the thread here, but I can't see that working. All it takes is one piece catching a little bit and jamming everything up. For example, if I am splitting into a pile and it begins to cover the table, it either pushes the split pieces to the side, or will actually push the splitter forward if the weight of the pile is too great. Since the grate and the trailer bed are nearly flush, I have to stack the wood once it starts jamming up. It will not "pile" itself up on the trailer. I would love to have a conveyor, or have an area that I could excavate to drop my trailer down several feet. I am fortunate to have a bobcat with a grapple bucket. If I didn't have that and a son, I don't think I would do wood!
> 
> Your chute would work great if your splitter was elevated and the chute could be sloped down to a trailer. But to load a dump truck, you would almost need some help from mother nature and retaining wall of some sort to get the height.



I have a cliff I was thinking of just splitting it over until I fill the valley its about twenty feet:monkey::dunno:


----------



## BPS. LLC (Sep 14, 2010)

ropensaddle said:


> I have a cliff I was thinking of just splitting it over until I fill the valley its about twenty feet:monkey::dunno:



Now with your nearly 15,000 posts in 3+ years, you should be an expert...at least at posting. Sounds like you have a goal, get off the computer and get something done.


----------



## angelo c (Sep 14, 2010)

BPS said:


> Now with your nearly 15,000 posts in 3+ years, you should be an expert...at least at posting. Sounds like you have a goal, get off the computer and get something done.



ruh roh !

Looks like somebody missed the "smiley's"...

Go get 'em Rope 

:rockn:


----------



## Curlycherry1 (Sep 14, 2010)

ropensaddle said:


> I have a cliff I was thinking of just splitting it over until I fill the valley its about twenty feet.



An outfit we used to buy split green wood from had a good system fed by gravity. They cut worked in the woods everyday and delivered 27 finished face cords of wood 5 days/week. Here is how they did it (and still do):

Dad dropped and skidded logs to a landind. The landing was made by digging out an ~10' wide by 5' deep spot in the ground. The dirt from that was piled 6' away and parallel to the hole. The logs were skidded to the top of the mound of dirt where son #1 would block the wood. He set the wood on the side of the mound of dirt which was ~3' high. On the flat between the mound of dirt and the hole was two splitters set nose to nose. Mom was the splitter and she split the wood. In the hole was parked a truck capable of holding 7 or 10 face cords of wood depending on which truck they were loading. Mom dropped the wood onto the truck and son #2 piled it. Son #2 also helped block wood or drop trees as needed. At noon he would head off to deliver the first 10 cords of wood so as to have the truck empty for afternoon loading. They then filled the 7 cord truck and refilled thge 10 cord truck before calling it a day.

Once cut the wood made progressive steps from higher ground to lower ground to the truck all fed by gravity.


----------



## ropensaddle (Sep 14, 2010)

Curlycherry1 said:


> An outfit we used to buy split green wood from had a good system fed by gravity. They cut worked in the woods everyday and delivered 27 finished face cords of wood 5 days/week. Here is how they did it (and still do):
> 
> Dad dropped and skidded logs to a landind. The landing was made by digging out an ~10' wide by 5' deep spot in the ground. The dirt from that was piled 6' away and parallel to the hole. The logs were skidded to the top of the mound of dirt where son #1 would block the wood. He set the wood on the side of the mound of dirt which was ~3' high. On the flat between the mound of dirt and the hole was two splitters set nose to nose. Mom was the splitter and she split the wood. In the hole was parked a truck capable of holding 7 or 10 face cords of wood depending on which truck they were loading. Mom dropped the wood onto the truck and son #2 piled it. Son #2 also helped block wood or drop trees as needed. At noon he would head off to deliver the first 10 cords of wood so as to have the truck empty for afternoon loading. They then filled the 7 cord truck and refilled thge 10 cord truck before calling it a day.
> 
> Once cut the wood made progressive steps from higher ground to lower ground to the truck all fed by gravity.



Hmmmmmmmm so how many faces fit into dis


----------



## ropensaddle (Sep 14, 2010)

angelo c said:


> ruh roh !
> 
> Looks like somebody missed the "smiley's"...
> 
> ...



gotcha both


----------



## RAYINTOMBALL (Sep 14, 2010)

super3 said:


> I still want to see a vid of the OP splitting a cord in 15-20 minutes.



I wasn't going to say anything, but since you brought it up I'd like to see that to.


----------



## 2FatGuys (Sep 14, 2010)

Read the rest of the posts... "7 to 10 cord truck"... by lunch time... with "mom" splitting.

It's obvious that they aren't talking "cord"... they have to be tlaking about "face cord". And if that's the case, a lot of us can claim that production rate.

Using practical math, you just can't achieve the number of splits necessary to accomplish 10 FULL cords in a morning with ANY single splitter.


----------



## Curlycherry1 (Sep 14, 2010)

RAYINTOMBALL said:


> I wasn't going to say anything, but since you brought it up I'd like to see that to.



I'd like to see "The Great Woodsplitter Challenge." People could enter with any machine they wanted. The rules would be simple. Start with any pile of rounds they wanted, big, small, random, whatever. Next to the splitter would be a rack, 4' across the bottom, 4' high sides and a top so as to settle the overfill issue. This would be made out of 2x4s or some other materials, but would hold a set amount of wood that any contestent could build. Lengths should be reasonable ranging from 14" up to 20" depending on the contestent's choice.

Then the games would begin. The contestent would have a witness or more preferably a video camera trained on the rack and the splitter and the time needed to fill the rack would be recorded. Videos would be preferred, but I could also go with a clock attached to the rack and a start and end picture recorded showing the clock times. Time stamps on the photos would also verify the time needed to fill the rack.

Just like the "rounds vs splits, which takes up more room" debate, I am willing to do my part to put this darn issue to rest once and fer all.

The dude or dudette that can verifiably fill their rack the fastest gets to claim "Fastest Woodsplitter on AS." We could even have two categories, machine and hand split.

Anyone game? I got Davec's SS and a nice random pile of wood for the SS data point. I got video and still cameras to so as to keep my side honest.


----------



## Curlycherry1 (Sep 14, 2010)

2FatGuys said:


> Read the rest of the posts... "7 to 10 cord truck"... by lunch time... with "mom" splitting.



Yep, face cords. This is in CNY where nobody sells by the full cord. Both splitters are also single wedge, too. No 4-way wedges.  The valves are set on each splitter so the lady starts the ram and it continues through the full stroke and then retracts on its own. So she loads ones spitter and goes and fills the other one and drops the splits onto the truck.

The trucks are stake rack trucks just under 8' wide inside the racks, so the wood gets piled about 4'4"-4'6" to account for not being 8' wide and for settling on the way to delivery.

Day in and day out this family is the most productive and consistent I have ever seen in a firewood operation. Because they have a dozer to replace the skidder if it breaks, an extra splitter and a few extra saws they never suffer from down time. The 4th person (son #2) does maintainence and runs parts when needed, often while delivering the mid-day load.


----------



## ropensaddle (Sep 14, 2010)

Curlycherry1 said:


> Yep, face cords. This is in CNY where nobody sells by the full cord. Both splitters are also single wedge, too. No 4-way wedges.  The valves are set on each splitter so the lady starts the ram and it continues through the full stroke and then retracts on its own. So she loads ones spitter and goes and fills the other one and drops the splits onto the truck.
> 
> The trucks are stake rack trucks just under 8' wide inside the racks, so the wood gets piled about 4'4"-4'6" to account for not being 8' wide and for settling on the way to delivery.
> 
> Day in and day out this family is the most productive and consistent I have ever seen in a firewood operation. Because they have a dozer to replace the skidder if it breaks, an extra splitter and a few extra saws they never suffer from down time. The 4th person (son #2) does maintainence and runs parts when needed, often while delivering the mid-day load.


Is this on planet Noproblemos?


----------



## RAYINTOMBALL (Sep 14, 2010)

ropensaddle said:


> Is this on planet Noproblemos?



:agree2::agree2::agree2:

Also a thrown cord is not going to be as much as a stacked cord JMO.


----------



## Curlycherry1 (Sep 14, 2010)

RAYINTOMBALL said:


> Also a thrown cord is not going to be as much as a stacked cord JMO.



Face cord, full cord, rick, stove cord, it all depends on what part of the country a person is selling in. Still the challenge is out there, a known measurable quantity of wood that can be split in an amount of time that can be recorded and be posted on Youtube. I would pick a full cord but that will get beyond the limits of what Youtube can handle. 4' by 4' by any reasonable length (14-20") seems like a reasonable compromise. We need to put machine against machine once and fer all.

Toss piles are complete BS as a means of measure and I am willing to throw down a challenge on that part also if we want to carry it that far. That can be part 2.


----------



## 2FatGuys (Sep 14, 2010)

I don't care where you live... a cord is a cord.

Calling a "face cord" a cord is like calling a yugo a 1-ton pickup truck. It isn't, and never will be. If you want to brag about production rates, at least use proper measuarable terms!

And your basis for competition is flawed. Allowing "any reasonable length (14-20")" isn't a fair competition. the range between 14" and 20" means that some people will be cycling their splitters 6" in and 6" back more on each stroke than others. Set a length... say 16" (since 3 rows 4'high x 8' long would equal a CORD)... and stick to it... anything under 16" is disqualified... anything over is a waste of splitter time. Let's face it, the 4x200m relay uses FOUR people.. not 3-5 people....


----------



## 2FatGuys (Sep 14, 2010)

ropensaddle said:


> Is this on planet Noproblemos?



You know... Rope... you never fail to amuse me!


----------



## angelo c (Sep 14, 2010)

My dad can beat your dad up !!!!:greenchainsaw:


----------



## Curlycherry1 (Sep 14, 2010)

2FatGuys said:


> I don't care where you live... a cord is a cord.
> 
> Calling a "face cord" a cord is like calling a yugo a 1-ton pickup truck. It isn't, and never will be. If you want to brag about production rates, at least use proper measuarable terms!
> 
> And your basis for competition is flawed. Allowing "any reasonable length (14-20")" isn't a fair competition. the range between 14" and 20" means that some people will be cycling their splitters 6" in and 6" back more on each stroke than others. Set a length... say 16" (since 3 rows 4'high x 8' long would equal a CORD)... and stick to it... anything under 16" is disqualified... anything over is a waste of splitter time. Let's face it, the 4x200m relay uses FOUR people.. not 3-5 people....



Hey, I don't dictate what people call and ask for. Move to CNY and set up shop selling firewood for full cords and see how far you get. Haven't you heard "the customer is always right, even when they are dead wrong?" Anyone in business knows that to be 100% true.

I know calling a measure of wood by anything other than a full cord is BS, but I am not going to keep going on that. End of discussion. Anyone with a brain can do the conversion of a FC of wood into full cords for comparison purposes as long as they know the lengths of the pieces.

Second I was not bragging. The family I was talking about was not my family. They are the Smiths out of Canastota NY. They are sort of known in the area from being featured in a newpaper article about their business they kept going after the dad died in a logging accident many years ago. Our family operation run by my brother is based on a Timberwolf HD processor. I have posted the full story of that here on AS and is easy to find. (Firewood, go big or go home)


Ok, so I'll agree that 14"-20" is not fair for the splitter smack down. For sure 20" wood will have a different time to split than 14". Fair enough. My pile right now is 16-18" wood so that is what I have to work with this very moment. It is also what I burn and from being in the business for 30+ years I would say it is a reasonable length that keeps most people happy. I cite that my brother sells in excess of 2000+ face cords (sorry for FC but it is what he sells) of 16" wood so that is my data point. Also, I don't want to go to the woods and fetch anything longer or shorter for the smack down because I would not be able to burn it.

Modifed challenge: Time to fill a 4' square rack with 16-18" splits of firewood, with each piece being split reasonably sized so that an average person can pick it up in one hand. Which to me means oak or similar density wood split smaller than 16 square inches when viewed on the end. Ie the wood should not be bigger on an end than 16" square inches, or at least not be 1.5-3X that size.

I am open to other suggested modifications to the smack down. Time to settle which splitter is the fastest, or at the bare minimum tack on some numbers to various splitters. I can see if my brother is willing to fill a rack off his processor. That might not be a fair comparison because log diameters makes a HUGE difference in processing time. 20" logs have a different processing time than 6-8" logs do. Night and day difference.


----------



## BlueRidgeMark (Sep 14, 2010)

Blackjack1234 said:


> Nice video, fast splitting, but I personally don't want to run a splitter that has an automatic forward lever, I like my hands and fingers too much!!!





Yeah, check this video. Right at the 20 second mark, he almost loses a finger, and doesn't even seem to know it! :jawdrop:



<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wMHcR6VEcg0?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wMHcR6VEcg0?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>


----------



## BlueRidgeMark (Sep 14, 2010)

Curlycherry1 said:


> That might not be a fair comparison because log diameters makes a HUGE difference in processing time. 20" logs have a different processing time than 6-8" logs do. Night and day difference.



:agree2:

Didn't somebody say something about matching the tool to the wood? So, maybe, there's no such thing as THE best splitter? And maybe not even, THE Fastest Splitter?


Maybe, just *maybe*, it depends on what you're splitting. Methinks the SS wouldn't do so well with 36" oak crotches, but might just *smoke* a TW-6 with 10 straight pine.

Maybe?


----------



## Curlycherry1 (Sep 14, 2010)

BlueRidgeMark said:


> Yeah, check this video. Right at the 20 second mark, he almost loses a finger, and doesn't even seem to know it! :jawdrop:
> >



Agree! How cow if that guy keeps splitting like that he WILL lose a finger eventually. No doubt about it.

The dangerous thing I have found about the SS is that when it hits a root stump flair piece or some other piece that causes it to ride up on the wedge it does so lightning fast. I have almost kissed an aweful lot of pieces.


----------



## Curlycherry1 (Sep 14, 2010)

BlueRidgeMark said:


> :agree2:
> Maybe, just *maybe*, it depends on what you're splitting. Methinks the SS wouldn't do so well with 36" oak crotches, but might just *smoke* a TW-6 with 10 straight pine.
> 
> Maybe?



That would have to be part of the smackdown qualifications. What counts as "average" firewood. I would be that 90% of the wood burned for firewood is in the tree size range of 8-20". The big stuff is more rare to most folks me thinks. I could be wrong. There eventually will be that one time.


----------



## super3 (Sep 14, 2010)

BlueRidgeMark said:


> :agree2:
> 
> Didn't somebody say something about matching the tool to the wood? So, maybe, there's no such thing as THE best splitter? And maybe not even, THE Fastest Splitter?
> 
> ...





There ya go.


----------



## angelo c (Sep 14, 2010)

BlueRidgeMark said:


> Yeah, check this video. Right at the 20 second mark, he almost loses a finger, and doesn't even seem to know it! :jawdrop:
> 
> 
> 
> <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wMHcR6VEcg0?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wMHcR6VEcg0?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>



Mark, 
I can't tell you anything about that video except I can say that either the engine is at idle or the video is slowed way down. Mine won't run that slow through the cuts. Also my wedge is much shorter and I would have to literally try to put my hand "under" the wood to put it in a dangerous position. I also think that he( video operator ) needs to think about a (production)table. You can't use a SS efficiently (or safely) w/o one. 
Something don't smell right with that video.


----------



## Curlycherry1 (Sep 14, 2010)

super3 said:


> There ya go.



Hmmm I have been thinking some more (yeah, I know, look out!). Having spent a lot of time munching up really big old hard maple trees that were over 3' in diameter, I gotta say that big wood is probably slower just due to the time required to manipulate the big logs into position. I could whack those things up quick with my 4-way, but overall they took more time to fill the truck back when I was doing it. That was 30+ years ago that I was doing wood that big, so memories might have faded.

I guess the smackdown should come down to fastest AS member splitting wood, and the splitter chosen and size of wood chosen is up to the competitor.


----------



## BlueRidgeMark (Sep 14, 2010)

Most of mine is big stuff, because it's free. If I were buying logs, I'd sure rather they were in the 8-12" range. Just a lot easier to handle.


----------



## Curlycherry1 (Sep 14, 2010)

Just in case anyone has not seen this before. It makes "big wood" a moot point.

http://www.timberwolfcorp.com/log_splitters/video.asp?id=15


----------



## ropensaddle (Sep 14, 2010)

Curlycherry1 said:


> Just in case anyone has not seen this before. It makes "big wood" a moot point.
> 
> http://www.timberwolfcorp.com/log_splitters/video.asp?id=15



Don't get many calls for ten foot wood


----------



## angelo c (Sep 14, 2010)

Curlycherry1 said:


> Just in case anyone has not seen this before. It makes "big wood" a moot point.
> 
> http://www.timberwolfcorp.com/log_splitters/video.asp?id=15



we have seen the steriod era in baseball...now I have witnessed the steriod era in woodsplitting....Lou Ferrigno meets Timberwolf.

Boy and for all this time we were just noodling then splitting, who knew we could buy a 30k machine and just split. I guess TW doesn't believe in Tub grinders... or chainsaws for that matter.


----------



## CUCV (Sep 14, 2010)

A few years back I got the opportunity to run a huge splitter, it was mounted up on a tractor trailer and makes the TW-10 look like a TW-1 in comparison. I got to run a few truckloads of wood thru it as the owner ran the split wood through a firewood processor. It helped made waste wood into a valuable product.


----------



## Manatarms (Sep 14, 2010)

I'm a little late to the party, but I agree with Curly....the only way to settle this crap is with a splitter challenge! I vote we assemble a large collection of woodsplitters in my yard and have the "split-off". I'll supply the wood. I've got plenty of sticks to split up of various species and size. We could start with stuff under 16 inches...and move our way up to the nasty yard trees.

Angelo can bring the SS, someone else the TW-5/6 and we can run them against my Built-Rite 24 and any other machine that comes along. 

-Mark





Curlycherry1 said:


> I'd like to see "The Great Woodsplitter Challenge." People could enter with any machine they wanted. The rules would be simple. Start with any pile of rounds they wanted, big, small, random, whatever. Next to the splitter would be a rack, 4' across the bottom, 4' high sides and a top so as to settle the overfill issue. This would be made out of 2x4s or some other materials, but would hold a set amount of wood that any contestent could build. Lengths should be reasonable ranging from 14" up to 20" depending on the contestent's choice.
> 
> Then the games would begin. The contestent would have a witness or more preferably a video camera trained on the rack and the splitter and the time needed to fill the rack would be recorded. Videos would be preferred, but I could also go with a clock attached to the rack and a start and end picture recorded showing the clock times. Time stamps on the photos would also verify the time needed to fill the rack.
> 
> ...


----------



## Manatarms (Sep 14, 2010)

BTW, I could care less which machine wins...I'll host this event for the purely selfish motive of having my wood split


----------



## ropensaddle (Sep 14, 2010)

Manatarms said:


> I'm a little late to the party, but I agree with Curly....the only way to settle this crap is with a splitter challenge! I vote we assemble a large collection of woodsplitters in my yard and have the "split-off". I'll supply the wood. I've got plenty of sticks to split up of various species and size. We could start with stuff under 16 inches...and move our way up to the nasty yard trees.
> 
> Angelo can bring the SS, someone else the TW-5/6 and we can run them against my Built-Rite 24 and any other machine that comes along.
> 
> -Mark



Who would want to go to NJ it was the most unfriendly state I ever been in. I do see some examples of good folks on here from there but I really did not like your state. PS: no offense meant to you btw.


----------



## Manatarms (Sep 14, 2010)

ropensaddle said:


> Who would want to go to NJ it was the most unfriendly state I ever been in. I do see some examples of good folks on here from there but I really did not like your state. PS: no offense meant to you btw.



Rope, no offense taken....however, I live in the nice part of Jersey...the part with trees!


----------



## ropensaddle (Sep 14, 2010)

Manatarms said:


> Rope, no offense taken....however, I live in the nice part of Jersey...the part with trees!



Lol the trees were friendly it was the gas station attendant the wife held me back on then the cars honking at me and some sob flipping me the bird and me trying to chase after him with a 53 foot trailer in tow that I did not like lol


----------



## angelo c (Sep 14, 2010)

ropensaddle said:


> Lol the trees were friendly it was the gas station attendant the wife held me back on then the cars honking at me and some sob flipping me the bird and me trying to chase after him with a 53 foot trailer in tow that I did not like lol



Rope, 
Just cause we got funny accents don't mean we can't be understood. Flippin someone the bird 'round these parts is means of saying "hello". The horns honking are attempts at music, we all need more music in our lives. 

I spent some three weeks in Atl a few years back and lemme tell ya yall southern folk werent all that hospitable to this yankee either. only difference is that everyone of all yall wanted to fight. we just want to honk horns and say hello. Up North we'll tease ya Southern boys but we'll take you in. Down South it ain't so. We will always be "Yankees" no matter how long we live with yall.

I say we take Mark up on his offer and have a big ol shin dig. He's got a great spread up in the country. You'ld fit right in


----------



## ropensaddle (Sep 14, 2010)

angelo c said:


> Rope,
> Just cause we got funny accents don't mean we can't be understood. Flippin someone the bird 'round these parts is means of saying "hello". The horns honking are attempts at music, we all need more music in our lives.
> 
> I spent some three weeks in Atl a few years back and lemme tell ya yall southern folk werent all that hospitable to this yankee either. only difference is that everyone of all yall wanted to fight. we just want to honk horns and say hello. Up North we'll tease ya Southern boys but we'll take you in. Down South it ain't so. We will always be "Yankees" no matter how long we live with yall.
> ...


Lol I can't gotta pay for the obahmistake but sounds cool. Really were a pretty laid back bunch here and we have many yanks amongst us but they have to learn not to flip the bird cause here its grounds for a fight. Don't think yall would have a problem.


----------



## Cmccul8146 (Sep 15, 2010)

Originally Posted by Curlycherry1 
I'd like to see "The Great Woodsplitter Challenge."


Back in May, 2006, I saw just such a Splitter Challenge at " Sawlex" forrest products demo in SC. Paul was there with a few of his different SS models,as well as several manufacturers of hydraulic splitters. Each entrant had a sheet of plywood with about a 6 inch square hole in it. Rules were simple. Every piece of wood had to pass thru the hole ,or reslpit until it did. Each entrant had the same number & size of rounds. First to finish wins. Paul was there by himself, and easily won hands down. The hydraulic guys all had at least 2 or more people for each machine, & those with 4 way wedges finished dead last. True that they'd get 4 pieces each stroke, but they would be too big to fit thru the hole & need to be resplit. After the "Splitoff" some guy came by the booth where Paul had all his splitters set up & challenged him to split a knotty gnarly ,twisted piece of Sweetgum with it. Paul just grinned, fired up that SS ,and went to work. Had to hit it twice for the 1st split, but after it was halved, one hit on each piece . Made a believer out of me, and that redneck who was trying to belittle the SS in front of his buddies. Hope you guys can get something like that going at a central location & really see what the SS is all about. And no ,I don't own a SS or a hydraulic, but did "homebuild" a SS copy with 102 lb. flywheels & a 3 hp engine. As far as the danger in the speed of these splitters, it's only the IDIOTS that keep their hands on the rounds that will get hurt. No need whatsoever to have either hand near the wood when you engage the gears. Product liability insurance is expensive because the world is full of idiots & people just looking to sue somebody, and that has to be added into the cost. I'm sure it's higher on the super fast SS than it is on some old slow hydraulic machine. If I could afford it, and were going to buy a splitter of any type or brand, SS would be the only one I'd consider.


----------



## davec (Sep 15, 2010)

> As far as the danger in the speed of these splitters, it's only the IDIOTS that keep their hands on the rounds that will get hurt. No need whatsoever to have either hand near the wood when you engage the gears.



I'll disagree slightly. Not every piece wants to sit where you put it - especially on the first split. So a hand - ON TOP - to keep it in place until contact is made is reasonable. But only when you need it to keep it in place until the ram makes contact. Hand on the end like that guy in the video is suicide. He's going to lose a finger or 4, no question. Just a matter of when...


----------



## Cmccul8146 (Sep 15, 2010)

I haven't had any to try to ride up on mine yet Dave, but guess it could happen. Especially if it is not sawed reasonably square . If I have one that's not sawed square, I put the long edge next to the beam, & make sure it's pushed all the way against the wedge before I lift the handle. One thing's for sure, they're dependable, fast, and fun to run.


----------



## Oldtimer (Sep 15, 2010)

bigden said:


> tw-p1 with 4 way is faster than handling a stick:greenchainsaw: of wood four times to get the same results come on guys don't give into the hip faster is not always the answer when it comes to a 4 way. 4 ways are always faster and the least you have to put your hands on the wood is always less labor. labor =money



He's right.

Move up to a TW5-FC with it's 6 second cycle time and auto cycle valves and 6 way wedge....you'll be lightyears ahead of the SS or about any other splitter save perhaps the biggest Built-Rite.


----------



## sunfish (Sep 15, 2010)

Hydro splitters are good!

Super Split is good!

Which is best? Depends on who you ask.

Will there always be the question, which is best? Yes!

Is there a definitive answer? No!

It's all good


----------



## 1harlowr (Sep 15, 2010)

sunfish said:


> Hydro splitters are good!
> 
> Super Split is good!
> 
> ...




:agree2:


----------



## Curlycherry1 (Sep 15, 2010)

sunfish said:


> Hydro splitters are good!
> Super Split is good!
> Which is best? Depends on who you ask.
> Will there always be the question, which is best? Yes!
> ...



As a person that develops quality tests for a living I can say unequivically that there ALWAYS is a way to find out what is best. It may cost a fortune and take forever, but it always can be done. At the bare minimum we should be able to form some groups of best, ok, worst, but more importantly dispell some myths that I have seen over the years.


----------



## WidowMaker (Sep 15, 2010)

First you have qualify "BEST" whats best to you may not be best to me...


----------



## Curlycherry1 (Sep 15, 2010)

WidowMaker said:


> First you have qualify "BEST" whats best to you may not be best to me...



That is what we call "voice of the customer."


----------



## sunfish (Sep 15, 2010)

WidowMaker said:


> First you have qualify "BEST" whats best to you may not be best to me...



That's my point 



> *rry1* As a person that develops quality tests for a living I can say unequivically that there ALWAYS is a way to find out what is best. It may cost a fortune and take forever, but it always can be done. At the bare minimum we should be able to form some groups of best, ok, worst, but more importantly dispell some myths that I have seen over the years.


True, enough money and time would work. But like said above...

'Best' might no have been the right word for this discussion. As 'Fastest' was the original question. 

I would not want a splitter any faster than a Super Split


----------



## samuraijunkie (Oct 1, 2018)

This is what I built a few years back 11hp 16gpm pump. Haven't found a log it wont split


----------



## sawjunky23 (Oct 2, 2018)

Way late to this party but what’s the cost of a Timberwolf compared to a SS?


----------



## Sandhill Crane (Oct 2, 2018)

Oldtimer said:


> Move up to a TW5-FC with it's 6 second cycle time and auto cycle valves and 6 way wedge....you'll be lightyears ahead of the SS or about any other splitter save perhaps the biggest Built-Rite.


This is quite an old thread.
Even so, I would disagree that, all things considered a big TW machine is better. I have owned a TW-6, and still own a SS-HD.
SS-HD a few years ago with shipping was $3,200 +
TW-6 w/log lift, 4-way, out feed table was (3 years ago) $10,400 approx.
I noodle what I can not lift. It's not so bad, but it is a very small percentage of my overall volume.
Depends too, whether your splitting for a boiler or stove wood.
If splitting for stove wood, two guys on each machine, the SS would most likely work you less. One guy noodling, one guy splitting.
If splitting for boiler wood, the TW will shine.
Now if you add PowerSplit, or a box wedge splitter to the party things change.


----------



## Sandhill Crane (Oct 2, 2018)

Opps!


----------

