New SpeedPro Kinetic Log Splitter from TSC...

[philwillmt]

Hey CUCV

Four way looks productive, and very cool!!! I wonder if the speedpro H-beam is heavy enough to keep it from bending. I suppose someone could truss the under side of the beam(somehow) for extra support. (1/2" plate cut 2-3" tall, running along the bottom of the H-beam?? First though anyways.)

While I was checking out your video, your ram speed caught my eye. After splitting with my spdpro on Sunday, your ram speed seemed slow (its not slow...spdpro is too fast). So, as bored as I am, I got my stopwatch out...LOL. Your total ram cycle on your SS was around 2.5 seconds (give or take obviously). Then I searched youtube for some speedpro vids. Found the one with the kid taking a video of his dad splitting w/speedpro (the kids naration is kinda funny). I assume he was running wide open, cuz I could hardly time the cycle, but got consistently around one second. That's for total cycle from engagement to complete return on both machines.

Irony; While I looked up the clutch part number, I noticed that the spdpro manual said it had a cycle time of...get this...2.5 seconds.

Here is the Speeco part # for the clutch (according to the owners manual): S40170500
Not sure how your pinion shaft turns without knowing how your mods work. But if it's running between (attached to) the flywheels like on the speedpro, DR, and SS stock, it's turning the same rpm as the flywheels.

Dozer Man,

I have timed my SpeedPro a number of times at 2500rpm, and I get a consistent 1.3 to 1.4 second cycle time...WAY too fast for half-throttle in my opinion. I would hate to see what it is at full throttle (3850rpm), which is what SpeeCo recommends in the owner's manual! All of the Super Split and DR Rapid Fire videos that I have viewed are noticeably slower...and as a result appear to operate smoother. I just watched the Super Split with the 4-way wedge, and you can hear the engine bog down a bit on each cycle. That tells me the engagement mechanism and clutch are working properly. I'm not sure, but it actually seems to me the 4-way wedge on the Super Split was slowing the ram down a bit too much. It also seems there were an awful lot of very small pieces of wood, depending on the log size. That has always been a concern of mine with the 4-way wedges. That was the first time I saw one in action. I think the 4-way wedge would actually work better on the SpeeCo due to the excessive ram speed. If not, I bet it would work at full throttle, or parts would be flying...one of the two. Probably the latter of the two. I think the hard part would be trying to prevent the auto disengagement issue. I wouldn't want to try it!

 

[CUCV]

I still use the stock clutch.

Sorry, I will have to do some research on the part # for the clutch. I'll dig out the manuals tomorrow at the shop. I'm sure speeco would probly sell it to you though.

I definately don't mind not running at full throttle. Actually, that's why I'm being picky about the pulley size. I really don't want to have to run at full throttle. If I could get a pulley in the 2" range (measured from inside of belts), that would give a flywheel speed around 350rpm with 3000rpm engine speed. That would give options to speed it up, or to slow it down. The DR clutch might be the best option though. With the speedpro running a little smaller flywheel, that actually speeds up the flywheel speed. So, in essence, the speedpro would still have a faster flywheel speed at any engine setting.
As it is now, I can't slow the engine down any slower and keep the clutch engaged (engine rpm 2600 = flywheel rpm 470).
Hopefully they will get the parts out and get these things up for sale again. Then you can go test drive one. I don't think you would be disappointed in the return speed of the ram if fast return is what you are looking for. The ram always bounces off the stops at least once after each stroke. A test drive might also make you carefull of how much you increase your flywheel speed. I was actually surprised at how slow the SS was flywheel speed is. But the numbers don't lie, 1" pulley with an 18.25" flywheel at 3850rpm actually only charts out to a little over 210 flywheel rpm. I wouldn't have believed the pulley size if I hadn't seen the picture with a tape measure beside the pulley (measuring where the inside of the belt runs). I won't argue with Paul @ SS though!! I'll leave that to the man wanting to put a diesel on his SS!!! I want to see that video!!

After thought...wonder what rpm a small diesel engine needs to run? Most diesels don't wind up near what there gas counterparts do. I don't know about the little diesel engines. Hate to see the there price tag!

 

[Cmccul8146]

SpeedPro Clutch

Dozerman, if you can't run your SpeedPro below 2650 rpm because the clutch won't engage, the springs in the clutch are too strong for a splitter application. You should have a clutch that engages at 1500- 1700 rpms. You can have a clutch specially made with pulley diameter you want & also spring pressure too, but it'll cost mega bucks to have just 1 made.

Take another look at the DR "Under the Hood" video. The SS & DR don't have V grooves in the flywheels, and the DR appears to be running a wide ,flat belt in the video. A DR owner could confirm this. What I'm getting at is that V belt pulleys are like gear pitch diameters. The diameter is measured at near mid contact point between the 2 gears, or in this case, the belt & pulley groove. That's why the SS, running a 1.75 diameter clutch pulley @ 3600rpm Is turning 18 inch flywheels at 300 rpm as advertised.

If you have access to an old gocart clutch, take it to a local machine shop & have the sprocket machined off & a thick walled sleeve welded on. After it's welded on, have it machined to a finish size so it runs true with the hub. You or another SpeedPro owner stated that your flywheels are 17.625 diameter, so the V groove makes them even smaller. You could have the new sleeve type pulley made to 1 1/4 diameter, run a flat belt on the 17.625 flywheels , 3600rpm and be turning your flywheels at approximately 280 rpm. Wouldn't need to be concerned about clutch spring pressure then either.

 

[Dozer Man]

Dozerman, if you can't run your SpeedPro below 2650 rpm because the clutch won't engage, the springs in the clutch are too strong for a splitter application. You should have a clutch that engages at 1500- 1700 rpms. You can have a clutch specially made with pulley diameter you want & also spring pressure too, but it'll cost mega bucks to have just 1 made.

Take another look at the DR "Under the Hood" video. The SS & DR don't have V grooves in the flywheels, and the DR appears to be running a wide ,flat belt in the video. A DR owner could confirm this. What I'm getting at is that V belt pulleys are like gear pitch diameters. The diameter is measured at near mid contact point between the 2 gears, or in this case, the belt & pulley groove. That's why the SS, running a 1.75 diameter clutch pulley @ 3600rpm Is turning 18 inch flywheels at 300 rpm as advertised.

If you have access to an old gocart clutch, take it to a local machine shop & have the sprocket machined off & a thick walled sleeve welded on. After it's welded on, have it machined to a finish size so it runs true with the hub. You or another SpeedPro owner stated that your flywheels are 17.625 diameter, so the V groove makes them even smaller. You could have the new sleeve type pulley made to 1 1/4 diameter, run a flat belt on the 17.625 flywheels , 3600rpm and be turning your flywheels at approximately 280 rpm. Wouldn't need to be concerned about clutch spring pressure then either.

I've been using figures measuring from the inner most point that the belt runs. Or, the deapest point at which the belt runs. Don't know if that is right, I heard it on here somewhere along the way. You are correct about the speedpro running V belts vs. the DR and SS running a more flat belt. That's why I'm leary about just ordering one of there clutches. Although, I could order one of there clutches and a belt, then swap my flywheels from one side to the other.

Speedpro flywheels are 18 5/8" to the outer edge, but the belts run a good 5/8" deep (outside of belt is actually recessed a little). The drive pulley, on the clutch, measures 3 5/8" at the outer edge. But the belts only run about half way down in the grooves (aprox. 1/4" deep or less). Using those figures, Cmccul, how would you go about figuring the flywheel speed? Again, I've been using the "inside of belt" measurements of 17.375" (flywheel) and 3.125" drive pulley, for the speedpro. On the SS, I've been using 18.25" fw, and 1" dp (they measure 1.75" o.d. but the actual belt rides at the "bottom" of the groove). Those are the "inner most" measurements of where the belt runs. If I am figuring wrong, please let me know.

I'm still waiting to see if speeco is going to do something about a smaller clutch pulley/gear ratio change. But I'm thinking that even though the SS and DR run a flatter belt, that one of my V belt on my speedpro will still work on there clutch pulley.

Thanks for your input, it is greatly appreciated!

ps...from what Philwill has said, and beings I don't have a tach, I am probly running the engine around 2500 rpm. That is just far enough past the engagement rpm (2200-2300) that the clutch and engine smooth out good.

 

[Cmccul8146]

Figure at middle of belt for pulley diameter, same as figuring pitch diameter for gears. SS uses 2 standard V belts to fit the clutch pulley . Alignment is so good that V grooves not needed for flywheels to keep belts on. Can't really see the clutch pulley on the DR video, but looks to have 1 wide flat belt. Any input on this from a DR owner?

 

[BSD]

these little kohlers idle around 1500 rpm, at least mine does. It will start engaging the clutch around 2200 and I've found 2550-2650 the ideal range to be splitting it, enough nut to get through the wood but not enough to over power the clutch with too much flywheel speed. I also liberally applied WD40 to the clutch, at any less speed and it has too hard of a time playing catch up with the flywheels with the soaked clutch.

 

[Dozer Man]

pinion pitch figures

Ok, at 18 5/8", it has a 5/8" groove all the way around. So, figuring like a pinion pitch, subtract the groove depth (once instead of twice) puts it at 18". Giving the drive pulley the benifit of the doubt, we'll say the belts runs 3/8" deep into the pulley, so that puts them at 3 1/4". That gives a flywheel rpm of 451.39 @ 2500 engine rpm. At the owners manual recomended 3850rpm, that puts the flywheels at 695 rpm......conclusion...I need a new clutch drive pulley!!!

DR priced there's to me at $75. DR Power told me that there clutch pulleys were 1.75", but I need to study some pics and vids before ordering. And I still need to give speeco a chance to rectify the issue also.

Again, thanks for you help, (and don't hesitate to correct me if I am wrong, an engineer I am not)

dozer

 

[philwillmt]

Ok, at 18 5/8", it has a 5/8" groove all the way around. So, figuring like a pinion pitch, subtract the groove depth (once instead of twice) puts it at 18". Giving the drive pulley the benifit of the doubt, we'll say the belts runs 3/8" deep into the pulley, so that puts them at 3 1/4". That gives a flywheel rpm of 451.39 @ 2500 engine rpm. At the owners manual recomended 3850rpm, that puts the flywheels at 695 rpm......conclusion...I need a new clutch drive pulley!!!

DR prices there's to me at $75. DR Power told me that there clutch pulleys were 1.75", but I need to study some pics and vids before ordering. And I still need to give speeco a chance to rectify the issue also.

Again, thanks for you help, (and don't hesitate to correct me if I am wrong, an engineer I am not)

dozer

Dozer Man,

Assuming your measurements are correct, your RPM calculations are dead on! Conclusion...TOO FAST!!! Do you thing anyone at SpeeCo has read "TOO FAST" in this post yet? I'm beginning to wonder! :confused2: Also, I agree with what someone said about using WD-40 on the clutch pads...it takes too long for the flywheel speed to recover once they stop. However, it does get about right after being run for a while and the WD-40 has time to sling out and dissipate.

 

[schaaed1]

I think the 4-way wedge would actually work better on the SpeeCo due to the excessive ram speed. If not, I bet it would work at full throttle, or parts would be flying...one of the two. Probably the latter of the two. I think the hard part would be trying to prevent the auto disengagement issue. I wouldn't want to try it!

I think whomever tries this on an unmodified Speeco better be wearing full body armor.:msp_scared: With the speed the flywheels are running, a 4-way wedge will compound all of the issues people have been seeing with them.

I really think that you guys have hit the 'nail on the head'. IMHO, the major problem with the Speeco is the flywheel/rack speed, period. The excess flywheel speed is just exagerating/causing other issues ... disengagement and teeth flying off. The forces due to the ram speed are breaking/disingaging things, before the flywheels slow down enough to cause the clutch to slip.

The formula for kinetic energy is equal to mass times velocity squared, divided by 2 or (MxVxV)/2 (hard to show a formula on here). Lets take two identical splitters X & Y. Lets say they are the same specs as the SuperSplit. Double the mass on the flywheels of splitter X ... the ram will have way more energy than it did originally. Now take splitter Y and lets double its ram velocity (hey isn't the Speecos ram speed almost twice that of the SS orDR?). Modified splitter Y (Stock Speeco) will have WAY more kinetic energy than the modified splitter X. Well that is untill the High speed splitter Y starts beating itself to death, as pieces fly.

Now some engineer/physicist type woodchopper is probably going to come on and tell me that my calculations don't provide for 'rotating mass' blah-blah-blah ... and they are right (he!! I aint that smart). But the point is still there and will hold true at least to some significant extent.

Unless Speeco takes care of the speed/rpm issue ... either the new racks or some other component will still be breaking.

 

[philwillmt]

Unless Speeco takes care of the speed/rpm issue ... either the new racks or some other component will still be breaking.

Schaaed1,

100% dead on!!! As I have said before, the teeth breaking off the racks is only a symptom...NOT a cause! They need to send us a smaller clutch...it's that simple! Still waiting to hear from SpeeCo on what their "fix" is going to be...two weeks has come and gone since my last correspondence, and I still have not heard from them.

 

[logbutcher]

Any DR 10T, or Ramsplitter 16T Electric Splitter Owners ?

Damn, I am impressed with this analysis of a product all of us could use.

The engineering brainpower here is astounding....and, I have no interest in the SS or RapidFire now !

You marvels have to be at least Professors ( "PROFESSORS" ? ) of M.E. At least.

Now for my request: similar professional eval of 2 products that we can use this spring:

1. DR 10 Ton Dual Action Electric Splitter ( details on their site).
2. Ramsplitter 16 Ton Electric Splitter (site details).

Electric is how we want to go on a 110v, 20a circuit. No more 22 T gas.
Splitting 6-8 cords/year of average 16"-20" butts of Red Maple, Paper Birch, some Ash, little Red Oak.
Ramsplitter "looks" less slick than the DR: hydraulic hoses exposed, I beam rather than boxed beam.
Both have good reps.
DR has a "6 Month Trial", pay shipping both ways IF returned. Ram has no return policy, just parts warranty.

Thx.

 

[Dozer Man]

Uh...what??

Damn, I am impressed with this analysis of a product all of us could use.

The engineering brainpower here is astounding....and, I have no interest in the SS or RapidFire now !

You marvels have to be at least Professors ( "PROFESSORS" ? ) of M.E. At least.

Now for my request: similar professional eval of 2 products that we can use this spring:

1. DR 10 Ton Dual Action Electric Splitter ( details on their site).
2. Ramsplitter 16 Ton Electric Splitter (site details).

Electric is how we want to go on a 110v, 20a circuit. No more 22 T gas.
Splitting 6-8 cords/year of average 16"-20" butts of Red Maple, Paper Birch, some Ash, little Red Oak.
Ramsplitter "looks" less slick than the DR: hydraulic hoses exposed, I beam rather than boxed beam.
Both have good reps.
DR has a "6 Month Trial", pay shipping both ways IF returned. Ram has no return policy, just parts warranty.

Thx.

Let me think about this....Thanks but no thanks!!

fyi...sarcasm not appreciated lb

 

[Russ84na]

Schaaed1,

100% dead on!!! As I have said before, the teeth breaking off the racks is only a symptom...NOT a cause! They need to send us a smaller clutch...it's that simple! Still waiting to hear from SpeeCo on what their "fix" is going to be...two weeks has come and gone since my last correspondence, and I still have not heard from them.

I have been following this thread ever since I got the flyer from Tractor Supply and then found out that they had been taken off the market.
I agree that the speed of the ram is the root of the problem and the teeth breaking off is the symptom. Everyone is talking about slowing down the ram by using a smaller clutch pulley. Not having a machine to look at so I can't tell if this idea is feasible, I will just toss it out for discussion.
What if the drive belt was run to a shaft that had both a 6" and 3" pulley on it and then to the flywheel. Doing this, if my calculations are correct would result in a slower ram speed.
3.25" clutch pulley run to a 6" intermediate pulley @ 2500 RPM's would result in a shaft speed of about 1350 rpm's. If a second belt was run from the 3" pulley on the same shaft as the 6" pulley to the 18" flywheel, the result would be about 225 rpm's.
Please confirm or dispute my calculations and tell me if this is feasible to install the extra pulley's on the speedpro.

 

[schaaed1]

I have been following this thread ever since I got the flyer from Tractor Supply and then found out that they had been taken off the market.
I agree that the speed of the ram is the root of the problem and the teeth breaking off is the symptom. Everyone is talking about slowing down the ram by using a smaller clutch pulley. Not having a machine to look at so I can't tell if this idea is feasible, I will just toss it out for discussion.
What if the drive belt was run to a shaft that had both a 6" and 3" pulley on it and then to the flywheel. Doing this, if my calculations are correct would result in a slower ram speed.
3.25" clutch pulley run to a 6" intermediate pulley @ 2500 RPM's would result in a shaft speed of about 1350 rpm's. If a second belt was run from the 3" pulley on the same shaft as the 6" pulley to the 18" flywheel, the result would be about 225 rpm's.
Please confirm or dispute my calculations and tell me if this is feasible to install the extra pulley's on the speedpro.

Certianly adding in a jackshaft could get you to the same result, with the appropriate pulleys. I do not have a machine either, and I said many pages ago that I am following this only to come up with ideas to build one.

That being said ... addiing a jackshaft may not be very easy. At minimum there would be an alignment issue with the belts and the motor would have to be offset by 1/2 the with of the double pulley (otherwise the belt on the flywheel will not end up in the grove). You could also take the approach of putting one pulley on either end of the jackshaft ... but then the motor would have to be relocated. Either way, by the time you bought shaft material, a couple bearing blocks and a couple sheaves ... I think there would be a few $$ and some pretty major reengineering. Now if you were building from scratch this might be a good way to go and would add simple adjustability in the flywheel RPM.

IMHO, changing out the clutch is still the the most practical solution.

Hmmm ... as I am typing ... I am wondering if there is a clutch that, someone with a lathe (like me:msp_smile, could turn the existing pully or sprocket down and still have enough 'meat' left for a stub shaft. With a stub shaft on the clutch, you could change pulley sizes at will.

Maybe I'll have to watch what solution Speeco comes up with (I don't think it will be changing pulleys). Maybe someone I know will have to come up with a pulley retrofit kit.

 

[logbutcher]

Any DR 10T, or Ramsplitter 16T Electric Splitter Owners ?

Let me think about this....Thanks but no thanks!!

fyi...sarcasm not appreciated lb

Hey Doz, there's NO, repeat NO, sarcasm here implied or meant. Get a clear definition of what sarcasm is. If you can't understand the words, ask for an explanation. You read too much into the thin skin syndrome demo-ed by your post.

Read again: it is a compliment about the expertise and detail about machines. It is interesting and informative....for me. You need to cease making Straw Dog structures.
This was not a post for your "appreciation". It was as said and requested. Get over it Doz. "You are not the target" ( A. Huxley)

Now again: anyone have that kind of experience and expertise about electric splitters mentioned ? ( No, not you Doz :msp_sneaky: ).

 

[ziggo_2]

Sounded like speeco was replacing the rack, im wondering if the replacement rack will correct the speed issue....But it looks like we will never know. Seriously, you guys have waited too long for these fixes...if i was any of you, id be calling speeco everyday complaining.....kinda seems like they are trying to sweep this under the rug, dont it?

 

[CUCV]

Schaaed your equation is correct and it can be applied to rotational inertia however, there are other equations necessary to quantify the amount of splitting force being applied the to the log that is going to be split. The most difficult thing to figure out is the amount of time that the maximum force is being generated. As the length of time is shortened the equations used to analyze the splitting force changes from linear to non-linear.

I ran the numbers on a sticky note the other day. I made a bunch of assumptions as you have to in many instances and solved for the length of time to completely stop the flywheels from full speed to generate a force of 16 tons as advertised by Supersplit. I then took this length of time and ran the numbers on the Speedpro again making a bunch of assumptions. The numbers aren't worth posting yet because I feel like i need better dimensions and a tached RPM on the flywheel of the speedpro.
Basically I'm trying compare the impact load of a Suburban going 5mph crashing into a wall vs. a yugo going 10mph crashing into a wall. ie SS with 75lb flywheels vs Speedpro with 60lbs flywheels.

Another way to look at the problem is look at the teeth on the rack and pinion. How many teeth are in contact at any point in time and how much surface area is the force being applied to? I'm guessing since the pinion is so small there is not much more than one tooth in contact at any point and the surface area in contact is around a .25". (these are just guestimated) So if we take that and apply a 32000lbs load (16 tons) we are looking at 128,000 psi. So I'm guessing rack and pinion are not A36 steel.

From my experience messing around with my supersplit it really doesn't matter how fast the flywheel is spinning, its how fast the pinion is spinning. My third homemade flywheel spins at 1000rpm but my pinion speed is stock speed. I met a guy years ago who had a very early SS (like single or double digit serial number) It had one flywheel that spun at motor speed 3600rpm but the pinion ran the same speed as mine.

I think whomever tries this on an unmodified Speeco better be wearing full body armor.:msp_scared: With the speed the flywheels are running, a 4-way wedge will compound all of the issues people have been seeing with them.

I really think that you guys have hit the 'nail on the head'. IMHO, the major problem with the Speeco is the flywheel/rack speed, period. The excess flywheel speed is just exagerating/causing other issues ... disengagement and teeth flying off. The forces due to the ram speed are breaking/disingaging things, before the flywheels slow down enough to cause the clutch to slip.

The formula for kinetic energy is equal to mass times velocity squared, divided by 2 or (MxVxV)/2 (hard to show a formula on here). Lets take two identical splitters X & Y. Lets say they are the same specs as the SuperSplit. Double the mass on the flywheels of splitter X ... the ram will have way more energy than it did originally. Now take splitter Y and lets double its ram velocity (hey isn't the Speecos ram speed almost twice that of the SS orDR?). Modified splitter Y (Stock Speeco) will have WAY more kinetic energy than the modified splitter X. Well that is untill the High speed splitter Y starts beating itself to death, as pieces fly.

Now some engineer/physicist type woodchopper is probably going to come on and tell me that my calculations don't provide for 'rotating mass' blah-blah-blah ... and they are right (he!! I aint that smart). But the point is still there and will hold true at least to some significant extent.

Unless Speeco takes care of the speed/rpm issue ... either the new racks or some other component will still be breaking.

logbutcher
Any DR 10T, or Ramsplitter 16T Electric Splitter Owners ?

Logbutcher
Save your cash and buy an electric Supersplit
ELECTRIC SUPERSPLIT LOGSPLITTER - YouTube

 

[schaaed1]

No arguments CUCV, I think we are both, pretty much, thinking along the same lines.

I actually did not know the difference in the mass of the flywheels ... but that's why in my example I said both version X&Y were both SuperSplits. I could have said DR or Speeco ... doesn't matter as long as the rest is the same ... only changing one part of the equation for illustration (also would have meant the pinions would have been same diam and geared the same).

Also true, the pinion rpm makes the difference in speed. But on the stock machines ... the pinion rpm = flywheel rpm (unless I'm missing something). In your case with the third flywheel, the situation gets more complicated ... but this would also be unique to your machine.

Actually, I did not think of this before, but your modded SS shows part of what I was saying. You increaased the mass of the flywheels and are getting good and controlable results. What do think would have happened had you not put on the third flywheel, but instead, came close to doubling the ram velocity?

A diff twist on your crash analogy (for people that we might be loosing in our 'jibberish') ... but it kinda illustrates the point:
Stock SuberSplit = Ford Explorer doing 35mph
CUCV's SuperSplit (xtra flywheel) = Ford Excursion doing 35mph
Stock SS with 'almost' double velocity = Ford Exploreer doing 69mph.

Which will sustain the most damage in a crash with a concrete wall?

 

[philwillmt]

Sounded like speeco was replacing the rack, im wondering if the replacement rack will correct the speed issue....But it looks like we will never know. Seriously, you guys have waited too long for these fixes...if i was any of you, id be calling speeco everyday complaining.....kinda seems like they are trying to sweep this under the rug, dont it?

Ziggo_2,

Replacing the rack will not correct the over-speed issue in any way. You're right...SpeeCo has been very hush-hush thus far. I'm still waiting to hear back from them.

 

[CUCV]

Basically when I did the math out I came out with the stock SS with more impact force than the Speedpro. So using the analogy below my modified SS sees the most damage, second the stock SS and last the speedpro. However, I believe my assumptions on the Speedpro are to great to be conclusive but my math does show that the slower heavier vehicle can see more damage.

No arguments CUCV, I think we are both, pretty much, thinking along the same lines.


A diff twist on your crash analogy (for people that we might be loosing in our 'jibberish') ... but it kinda illustrates the point:
Stock SuberSplit = Ford Explorer doing 35mph
CUCV's SuperSplit (xtra flywheel) = Ford Excursion doing 35mph
Stock SS with 'almost' double velocity = Ford Exploreer doing 69mph.

Which will sustain the most damage in a crash with a concrete wall?