That would be a Loooong cycle time. Sounds like a beast though.
Log splitter kinetic or hydraulic??
- Thread starter The Diesel
- Start date
Help Support Arborist Forum:
That would be a Loooong cycle time. Sounds like a beast though.
I can do 5 1/2' okay. Ever thought about raising the boom height or is it a rare enough thing not to warrant the change? I'm an oddball as I find myself not using the multiwedge as much. I mainly just want to get it to handable size for me so I chunk them quickly. With a single wedge I can split 2 pieces of the side and swing the bulk out of the way and have "in air storage" if you will. Nothing hits the ground till it's to size. For dad we split normal size stuff but it's the same system. We'll do all the really big and smaller till we leave all the stuff that will 1/4 to size, then change the wedge. Adjustable 4 way would be nice there but impossible with the swing boom system/wedge on ram. If you have a pusher, I guess that is why you can have in air storage because the chunk would swing.
I'm really looking forward to seeing your beast in action. You've put a lot of thought into that bad boy!
Whitbread
ArboristSite Operative
I went back and found the rebuild receipt, it was a 6"x36" cylinder, not 8" as I initially recalled. Been a few beers since I built it haha. It was a 12 second cycle to run the ram 24" (made a stop block that dropped over the piston shaft to limit return stroke and kick the valve off when I didn't need 36") which wasn't bad, but an eternity compared to the SS I just got last week. I'm spoiled rotten now.
BIG difference between 6 and 8 inch! You were running 3.5 inch rod on that? That's a big one.
Do you run 24" long now wit the super split? They look cute but they just don't fit my needs. I don't noodle anything.
Whitbread
ArboristSite Operative
Yeah sorry, my memory has never been the best to start with and the years certainly aren't helping haha. It was either a 3" or 3.5" shaft, don't recall exactly other than being massive. The ram was a stabilizer jack from a 60's well drilling semi I found abandoned in the woods of Ohio.
I try to cut about 22-23" logs now although my eyeballs seems to be calibrated to cut 25" and I ended up having to trim a few logs yesterday to get them to fit in the splitter. Still un-training myself on that one. I don't noodle anything either, trees rarely grow that big up here in northern MI with the constant logging over the last 150 years. The state logged about 1000 acres within a 2 mile radius of me so I just got a fuelwood permit from the DNR and I go out and clean up everything the loggers left behind. The largest round chunk I've come across so far has been about 24" so the SS is perfect for the wood I have access to.
Yeah sorry, my memory has never been the best to start with and the years certainly aren't helping haha. It was either a 3" or 3.5" shaft, don't recall exactly other than being massive. The ram was a stabilizer jack from a 60's well drilling semi I found abandoned in the woods of Ohio.
I try to cut about 22-23" logs now although my eyeballs seems to be calibrated to cut 25" and I ended up having to trim a few logs yesterday to get them to fit in the splitter. Still un-training myself on that one. I don't noodle anything either, trees rarely grow that big up here in northern MI with the constant logging over the last 150 years. The state logged about 1000 acres within a 2 mile radius of me so I just got a fuelwood permit from the DNR and I go out and clean up everything the loggers left behind. The largest round chunk I've come across so far has been about 24" so the SS is perfect for the wood I have access to.[/QUOTE
A 3 inch rod would be 13 seconds at full speed so that is why I thought a 3 1/2 rod. We still have a fair amount of old stuff around. I clean up deads and such so 3 fts are kind of common for me. 4 to 6's occasionally. People tend to leave thoseI just want stuff I can carry easy so it's a different need than most.
Sure you can, it just takes money. The Chomper uses a shear to cut and split the wood. All it would take is a big enough cyl with enough pump flow and the hp to to pull the pressure and you could make a stamping type splitter that sheared the log and split it all in one pass. Making it automatic so all you had to do was feed whole logs isnt that hard either. Go with a variable displacement pump and a accumulator and closed center hydraulics with electric valves and limit switches and you can just about make the splitter run 24/7 unattended. Did I mention it takes money?
I could raise the boom, but the largest majority of my wood is 2ft and under. I get a few bigger rounds every now and then, but I dont go looking for them. Multi split wedges are not the doall endall solution for big rounds. If you have a 24in round and split into 6 even size splits, every one of those splits is still 12 inches wide. This is why I chose to build a 12way for my processor. A 24in round should give me 12 6in even size splits. Making the wedge adjustable is a must to keep the center of the knife lined up with the center of the round. If every round could be exactly 24 in or 12 in, my twelve way would be perfect, since the wood dont grow that way, even a 12 way wedge will have its tradeoffs. Just have to deal with it. I usually just run everything thru the 6way, which is tall enough I can raise it to just do 4way splits, and then sort out the resplits while stacking. A SS would make a excellent tool for handleing resplits. I really thinkk if I ever decide to go into the firewood business, a SS would be something I would want, just for doing the resplits. I cant see me man handleing a large round while turning it into little splits with a SS machine
I have both kinetic and hydraulic. The kinetic (SS SE) will split just about anything. But it will tire you out splitting larger knotty wood. Lots of resplits and wrestling the wood. I made a video showing how it handles bigger knotty wood and It took me eight minutes on each piece. I feel I should have used the hydraulic or noodled them in half. But for purpose of showing it could be done I only used the kinetic. For single or double splits the kinetic rules. But to get multiple pieces from a round it becomes heavy work.
But to get a hydraulic splitter with real speed cost $$$$$ and or time to build. There is no simple answer to the question of kinetic or hydraulic. I have both and still looking for something else. I really like the videos of the perfect clean Japa 435. But still more $. My favorite is my upside down TM skidsteer splitter. Great for boiler wood. Ok for firepit wood.
I even hired a processor. Had to resplit most with the kinetic to get the fireplace size I wanted. The splits would have worked in a boiler but that was not why I saved up good logs for two years.
But to get a hydraulic splitter with real speed cost $$$$$ and or time to build. There is no simple answer to the question of kinetic or hydraulic. I have both and still looking for something else. I really like the videos of the perfect clean Japa 435. But still more $. My favorite is my upside down TM skidsteer splitter. Great for boiler wood. Ok for firepit wood.
I even hired a processor. Had to resplit most with the kinetic to get the fireplace size I wanted. The splits would have worked in a boiler but that was not why I saved up good logs for two years.
Doug, you just confirmed what I had already suspected. Making little pieces out of big pieces takes to long and is to much work. Some one said the SS had a 3sec cycle, not sure if thats accurate, but with perfect size wood to make 4 splits it would take about 12sec, for three strokes. With a decent hyd splitter, w/6sec cycle time, using a 4way wedge, that time could be cut in half, with less handleing of the wood. Watching that last video was painfull
I was doing large Oak rounds yesterday on a SS-HD. A couple rolled on the ground and I had all I wanted to pick up one half after noodling. The rest, I lifted off the cut table and set them down on the staging table, so not really lifting. Often one hit on the SS will split a large round. Just as often it may have to be rolled 180 and run through again, or hit several times. Some consider multiple hit to split a round a fault. It is not. Lifting four fingers a couple extra times is not an issue or me. Sticking a round on an SS is not much work to free it. Sticking one on a hydraulic can be a bit more effort to free it.
Once halved, it is smooth going. Set one half aside on the staging table so there is room to work. Flat side up, take a split off the far edge, then take another split 4" wide, flip that split on it's side and halve that. Repeat, and what you have left is a single piece, the sixth piece from that half. Next half round. If I have a large difficult round on the cut table, it gets noodled before going to the staging table. It is all work. It just makes sense to do what is quickest or easiest. They are not the same by the way. I do not have a do-all machine, or perfect world situation. Quickest or easiest, and move on...
I found quartering with the TW-6 and then resplitting with the SS to be more work, more handling to be specific. If doing big rounds with the TW, then resplitting as I go works best for me with the modified shelf wedge. Again, little to no physical lifting involved, as the big top splits are lifted with hydraulics in place on the four-way shelf. This allows resplitting of the lower two pieces if necessary with the top splits lifted in place and splitting underneath them with the vertical wedge. Once the lower splits are done, slide the top piece closest to me onto the horizontal log lift with a pulp hook, out of the way. (I operate standing between the log lift and hydraulic tank. This also allows me to load the log lift without circling the machine each time.) Then slide the top piece on the far side onto the beam with the pulp hook, no lifting. Lower the four-way shelf so that after the split it can be lifted, releasing the trapped lower split for resplitting if necessary, and repeat. The TW four-way does not lower flat with the beam. It bottoms out on a stepped vertical wedge, making about a four inch high split.
When I quartered rounds on the TW it dumps them on the ground, so then resplit with the SS, each quarter had to be lifted. It added work and possibly more time as well. There is however a difference in the type of splits you get from each machine. If bundling, then resplitting with an SS may very well be the way to go. For me over 18" or so, it is noodling, or if there are several large logs to do, the TW and log lift. I no longer use both in tandem as I thought I might.
Once halved, it is smooth going. Set one half aside on the staging table so there is room to work. Flat side up, take a split off the far edge, then take another split 4" wide, flip that split on it's side and halve that. Repeat, and what you have left is a single piece, the sixth piece from that half. Next half round. If I have a large difficult round on the cut table, it gets noodled before going to the staging table. It is all work. It just makes sense to do what is quickest or easiest. They are not the same by the way. I do not have a do-all machine, or perfect world situation. Quickest or easiest, and move on...
I found quartering with the TW-6 and then resplitting with the SS to be more work, more handling to be specific. If doing big rounds with the TW, then resplitting as I go works best for me with the modified shelf wedge. Again, little to no physical lifting involved, as the big top splits are lifted with hydraulics in place on the four-way shelf. This allows resplitting of the lower two pieces if necessary with the top splits lifted in place and splitting underneath them with the vertical wedge. Once the lower splits are done, slide the top piece closest to me onto the horizontal log lift with a pulp hook, out of the way. (I operate standing between the log lift and hydraulic tank. This also allows me to load the log lift without circling the machine each time.) Then slide the top piece on the far side onto the beam with the pulp hook, no lifting. Lower the four-way shelf so that after the split it can be lifted, releasing the trapped lower split for resplitting if necessary, and repeat. The TW four-way does not lower flat with the beam. It bottoms out on a stepped vertical wedge, making about a four inch high split.
When I quartered rounds on the TW it dumps them on the ground, so then resplit with the SS, each quarter had to be lifted. It added work and possibly more time as well. There is however a difference in the type of splits you get from each machine. If bundling, then resplitting with an SS may very well be the way to go. For me over 18" or so, it is noodling, or if there are several large logs to do, the TW and log lift. I no longer use both in tandem as I thought I might.
I am all for less handling and less walking around the splitter! I have already broken several 4 ways on several splitters. Thinking maybe horizontal knife type.
If it was easy everyone would be doing it.
If it was easy everyone would be doing it.
Sawyer Rob
Addicted to ArboristSite
I'm not sure how one would break the 4-way wedge on a TW?
Mine has NO damage at all after running hundreds of heavy tough crotches through it. My splitter pushes everything right through the 4-way no problem at all...
Seeing guys struggle with the SS on tough crotches in person, like in the video, is what pushed me to the TW that I bought! It just didn't cost much more than a top of the line SS and it's a LOT more splitter, that easily splits everything...
SR
Mine has NO damage at all after running hundreds of heavy tough crotches through it. My splitter pushes everything right through the 4-way no problem at all...
Seeing guys struggle with the SS on tough crotches in person, like in the video, is what pushed me to the TW that I bought! It just didn't cost much more than a top of the line SS and it's a LOT more splitter, that easily splits everything...
SR
The horizonal knife type is how I am thinking about modifying my current splitter. I kind of figure if I add some pull back bars to the pusher plate, I can just throw a big round on the beam and keep cycling the cyl until the big round is whittled down to size. One long horizonal bar with maybe three upright wedges under it and get 4 sticks of wood, with every pass. Bet I could get by with a smaller cyl and increase my cycle times a lot.
I considered three TW models. The 5, 6, and 7? Not sure of the number as Timberwolf no longer sells it. It had a box wedge that unbolted and the unit could be used with a bolt -on vertical wedge, w/hydraulic lift four-way and six-way option. I passed on it because the price was another step up, into the $11,000. range, and I had already been using the SS for a year. In hindsight I wish I would have gotten the box wedge model. They seem to make a lot of splitter trash, but they also seem to do a nice job and quickly. Not sure why it was discontinues. It would be interesting to know if it was lack of sales or a design issue with the bolt-on box wedge behind dropping the model.
sirbuildalot
Addicted to ArboristSite
I have to question the "not much more" than a top of the line supersplitter statement. A hydraulic TW that compares to a ss in production would be a tw5 or tw6. I don't feel as though a 3 point splitter is comparable to a stand alone unit. Not everyone has a decent sized tractor to run one. Compare a Stand alone to stand alone, how much is a tw5 or Tw6? 3 times the price of a SE ss sound about right? I can split 95 percent of my wood using about a gallon or two of gas a day and process over a cord an hour. I'd love a $10,000 timber wolf to quarter the huge stuff I rarely get. Who wants to loan me the money? The supersplitter is the best value for the most productivity. That is hard to argue. Period.
sirbuildalot
Addicted to ArboristSite
The biggest benefits of a ss imo are:
*low initial cost
*minimal maintenance
*minimum operating costs (gas used per day) items constantly needing replacement, etc.
*easy to maneuver by hand (especially in tight areas and narrow areas)
*American made
*great customer service
*low initial cost
*minimal maintenance
*minimum operating costs (gas used per day) items constantly needing replacement, etc.
*easy to maneuver by hand (especially in tight areas and narrow areas)
*American made
*great customer service
Got to ask, just what is the cycle time for a ss. If I converted my current splitter, which has a 25hp engine, (overkill, but already had) and 28 gpm pump, and used a 4in cyl instead of the current 5inch. I already have the 4inch bore cyl. I could put out 4 pieces of wood every 4.9 sec. If I switched to the horizonal wedge design and used a pull back system to pull the top half back on the beam on the return stroke, I think I could give the SS a run for its money, and not have to work as hard to do it. No turning of the round between each cycle, just throw the round on and pull the levers. I have this working in my head, but not ready to put it together.
sirbuildalot
Addicted to ArboristSite
Damn computer!!! That 25 hp engine you have wont be using a gallon and a half per day. If a commercial seller were to figure 10 cords a day on either machine I would envision the larger hydraulic machine would use at least 10 gallons of fuel per day, maybe more. I'll assume 10 for now. So instead of 3 dollars a day, its more like $20. Over the course of lets say 300 cords which would be 30 days of splitting, that's over $500 per year extra. That's with gas at $2/gallon which won't last 20 years. So really that $500 is more like $600-$700/year. Over the course of 20 years I would be talking about 10-14 grand. There is that new TW6 I wanted with the savings on gas alone. That's one small portion of the equation. Also factor in I can move the ss to any part of the pile in seconds. No one is moving a tw6 by hand. That's time eaten up. Bringing every piece to the splitter is also time eaten up. This argument could go on forever. I will say my ss is simpler, cheaper, and faster than any machine anywhere near its price point.
Check out Wood-Mizer box wedge wood splitters. I believe they bought Tempest. Nice website complete with pricing of splitters and options.
Edit: Note the log lift is an option... an expensive one.
Edit: Note the log lift is an option... an expensive one.
