# A John Deere 110 and a log splitter-it's a beautiful thing!



## Badfish740 (Mar 3, 2009)

I just ran across these pictures over on a Deere enthusiast site:












I have a 1973 110 that's in rough shape but now I'm pretty motivated to fix it up!  The 110s are pretty stout garden tractors and a far cry from the junk you'll see on the showroom floor of Sears, etc...  They're powered by 10 HP Kohler engines and are all equipped with a PTO pulley that can belt drive anything from a snow thrower to an air compressor.  I plan to copy this design using a 16 GPM 2 stage pump and a 4" x 24" cylinder.  With that combo I should have about 30 tons of splitting force.  The beauty of this is will be having a log splitter that I can simply drive to the woodpile.  Then I can split it all, throw it in a trailer, and pull it with the tractor to wherever I need it.  I have a piece of land that I cut that this will be perfect for as I can't get my truck very close to the deadfall I'm cutting.  With this I can trailer the 110 (log splitter attached) to the property, drive the tractor right to the cutting site, ferry the splits to the truck with the tractor, and load it all up and head home.  Once the weather gets nicer, stay tuned for details/pics.


----------



## savageactor7 (Mar 3, 2009)

HUH? I'm surprised he can get any traction in the woods with that...that's got to be way heavier than a snow blower. Yes I can see the wheel weights and Ag tires but...

...aside for that I'm impressed, never knew they made attachments like that.


----------



## Badfish740 (Mar 3, 2009)

savageactor7 said:
			
		

> HUH? I'm surprised he can get any traction in the woods with that...that's got to be way heavier than a snow blower. Yes I can see the wheel weights and Ag tires but...



You can also put suitcase weights on the rear.  What's the rule of thumb for balancing a heavy load on the front-ie: if the splitter adds 300 lbs (totally arbitrary number) over the font axle, how much weight should I put over the rear axle?  The same amount?  More?  I'm going to fill the rear tires with anti-freeze which should net me about 120 lbs.  I could probably easily add another 250 lbs with suitcase/wheel weights.


----------



## savageactor7 (Mar 3, 2009)

http://www.mytractorforum.com/forumdisplay.php?s=&daysprune;=-1&f=19

Badfish I don't know the formula but someone over there will.

So you bought that...very nice. 

First see if the previously owner had any traction problems ...don't take my word for it. But for the record back when I use to blow snow anytime I ventured on unfrozen earth I'd get stuck. Also soil conditions make a big difference around here we have a heavy loam with less than perfect drainage.


----------



## ansehnlich1 (Mar 4, 2009)

That tractor hood reads 112. 

We have an old 110, 1968 model, still runs, still mow with it, never considered a splitter, hmmmmm


----------



## kevin j (Mar 4, 2009)

weights inside the wheels, or calcium chloride in the tires, better than suitcase weights as the forces don't go through the axle and shaft and bearings. Just directly from tire to ground. Light axles might not take the weights.
Front axle will of course take the total weight form both ends added. Might need a beefup.
And I'd make some sort of rubber or plywood shield to protect the grille and sheet metal from flying wood.
need looking old tractor. used to work at a JD dealer as summer job in the late 60's. The hood lines of the earlier 110 are to me about the most classic of any L&G;. the 4020 look.....  kcj


----------



## Badfish740 (Mar 4, 2009)

ansehnlich1 said:
			
		

> That tractor hood reads 112



Ha!  Yeah, so it does-I didn't even look at that.  The 100 series tractors (110, 111, 112, 114, etc...) all had the same PTO drive, so it will still work.


----------



## Gooserider (Mar 4, 2009)

> I plan to copy this design using a 16 GPM 2 stage pump and a* 4” x 24” cylinder*.  With that combo I should have about 30 tons of splitting force.



*WRONG*  Splitting force is determined ONLY by the size of the cylinder...  Assuming you stick with the fairly standard 2500-3,000 PSI rated hardware, you will get no more than 20 tons out of that cylinder - 

Splitting force = hydraulic pressure x piston area = 3,000 x pi x r^2 = 3,000 x 3.14 x 2 x 2 = 37,680 psi /2,000 = 18.84 tons

To get 30 tons, you need a 5" cylinder...  However a 4" cylinder with a 16gpm pump is not a bad combo, as it will give you much faster cycle times - on the order of 10 seconds, as opposed to the 15 seconds or so you will get with a 16gpm pump on a 5" cylinder, or an 11gpm pump on a 4" cylinder...  20 Tons is also enough to split just about any round you are likely to get....

A few other thoughts...

1. Unless you need to split rounds that are over 20" long, the shorter the cylinder you can use, the shorter the beam you can get away with, which makes for a lighter stronger unit automatically...

2. The way that the picture shows the splitter being mounted crossways I'd think would make charging through the woods kind of an adventure - I think of what happens if you miss judge the gap between two trees and the result is not pretty...  It might be an improvement if you could come up with some way to do a tilt/swivel on the mount so the beam could point straight fore and aft while traveling - maybe even make it multi-position so you could either do horizontal or vertical splitting.

3. While it's a neat concept, I would think you'd get more production with a seperable splitter (including a separate engine) that you could haul to the wood and leave there while ferrying the splits back and forth to your truck, as opposed to carrying the splitter everywhere the tractor goes.

Whatever you decide to do, have fun with it...

Gooserider


----------



## Badfish740 (Mar 4, 2009)

Gooserider said:
			
		

> *WRONG*  Splitting force is determined ONLY by the size of the cylinder...  Assuming you stick with the fairly standard 2500-3,000 PSI rated hardware, you will get no more than 20 tons out of that cylinder



I used an online calculator to get that number-obviously something was left out of the calculation.   



			
				Gooserider said:
			
		

> Splitting force = hydraulic pressure x piston area = 3,000 x pi x r^2 = 3,000 x 3.14 x 2 x 2 = 37,680 psi /2,000 = 18.84 tons.  To get 30 tons, you need a 5" cylinder...  However a 4" cylinder with a 16gpm pump is not a bad combo, as it will give you much faster cycle times - on the order of 10 seconds, as opposed to the 15 seconds or so you will get with a 16gpm pump on a 5" cylinder, or an 11gpm pump on a 4" cylinder...  *20 Tons is also enough to split just about any round you are likely to get....*



Ahhh...the confusing world of logsplitter tonnage.  Will 20 tons really split anything I get?  I'm lucky enough to get a lot of locust and oak, but what will 20 tons do with hackberry and elm?  I'm not doubting you, I'm just looking at the fact that there are lots of 28 and 30 ton splitters out there.  Of course, I also know that like horsepower ratings, tonnage ratings sell more splitters.  



			
				Gooserider said:
			
		

> 1. Unless you need to split rounds that are over 20" long, the shorter the cylinder you can use, the shorter the beam you can get away with, which makes for a lighter stronger unit automatically...



I definitely need a 24" cylinder as I have an ESW add-on which will take up 26" splits.  I cut most of my locust and oak at 24-25".  



			
				Gooserider said:
			
		

> 2. The way that the picture shows the splitter being mounted crossways I'd think would make charging through the woods kind of an adventure - I think of what happens if you miss judge the gap between two trees and the result is not pretty...  It might be an improvement if you could come up with some way to do a tilt/swivel on the mount so the beam could point straight fore and aft while traveling - maybe even make it multi-position so you could either do horizontal or vertical splitting.



I've been thinking a lot about that and I'm going to come up with some way to build a multi-position because having vertical capability would be nice and would of course allow me to navigate narrower paths.  



			
				Gooserider said:
			
		

> 3. While it's a neat concept, I would think you'd get more production with a seperable splitter (including a separate engine) that you could haul to the wood and leave there while ferrying the splits back and forth to your truck, as opposed to carrying the splitter everywhere the tractor goes.



But what fun would that be?    This is just utilitarian need combined with an acquired Deere fanaticism.  Though I do have one property where I cut, a lot more of my wood really comes from scrounging or receiving log loads from local tree companies.  I just thought it would be need to be able to bring it to my cutting site.  Most of the time I think it will be in the yard chugging away in my work area.  When it's done I'll simply drive it back to the barn.  I'll keep everyone posted.


----------



## ManiacPD (Mar 4, 2009)

I would suggest adding a log grate to catch the wood after it is split.  You may be able to fashion a fold-away design or one that just bolts on or hangs onto the splitter beam.  I think the splits falling "behind" the splitter will build up around the front wheel of the tractor and it would get annoying fishing them out of such a tight area.  Plus the grate might save an errant stick from potentially damaging the sheet metal on the tractor.

For a bonus you could put a trailer behind the tractor to haul the splits off when done.  If you jack-knifed the trailer it would be a short throw to load it.  Just make sure you load the tongue end first as this baby would like tend to fold in the middle!


----------



## LLigetfa (Mar 4, 2009)

Rather than have the unit mounted crossway hanging out front, I would turn it 90 degrees and have it point forward.  Mount the cylinder on the left side and mount the pump and tank on the right side.  The tractor would be better balanced and as the pile of splits collect in front, you could easily back it away from the pile.


----------



## Gooserider (Mar 4, 2009)

Badfish740 said:
			
		

> Gooserider said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I know, sounds somewhat hypocritical with me owning a 30 ton, but now that I own that size, I can say that I would not have been unhappy with a 20.  I upgraded because of the very small difference in the cost when I purchased the unit, but it is way overkill.  I put a pressure guage on it as part of some other improvements I did, and I don't think I've EVER seen it go over 15-1800 psi when splitting, including red oak and maple crotches.  I also spend a lot of time sitting behind a friend's 20 ton as I help him with his wood business - I think I've had ONE peice that wouldn't split on the first try, and it went as soon as I repositioned and took another hit on it...

I don't feel such a burning desire that I'm going to go out and spend a lot of money to get one, but if a 4" cylinder fell in my lap (which would hurt - cylinders are HEAVY!  :lol: ) I'd consider downsizing in order to get the faster cycle times - I don't feel I really NEED the extra tonnage...

Gooserider


----------



## NoPaint (Mar 5, 2009)

I think I might build a pump onto my new cub cadet. I have been on here talking about building a splitter but why not attach it to my riding mower. I don't want it to leave my property so this way I can just pull up my newer cub cadet and start splitting. My only thought is that I would want to make it a vertical splitter so I could make it on a pivot on the center of the mower. I never guessed a belt drive would work but it seems like it does and with 15HP of V-Twin power I can easily get a HUGE gear pump to run this so that means faster cycle times and more power. To add even more to the wonderfulness of this idea is that the engine on the tractor is the only one I have to maintain and the only one that will need to be overhauled after many more hours.


----------



## dirttracker (Mar 5, 2009)

If you use a belt drive make sure you have the correct pump. Not all pumps are built to take the side load on the shaft due to the belt drive. 

20 ton should be enough for most elm, don't know about the others. I'm running a 4" cylinder on my splitter at ~1500 psi and have only found a few of the larger elm crotch sections that I could not tear through. This includes a number of decent sized elm rounds (20+ inches) and some fairly twisty grain. I planned on turning up the relief valve to get more force, but have not yet found much need for it.

I love the splitter in the OP! I thought about this arrangement a few years ago, but built a self contined unit with a 3 point hitch mount instead. I use my old 212 to pull a 4x8 trailer to haul the split wood to the shed. The manuverablity is really nice for getting through the trees, but traction sucks in the snow or mud and it's hard to steer with a full load.....if only they made lawn tractors with independent rear brakes.


----------



## Badfish740 (Mar 5, 2009)

dirttracker said:
			
		

> If you use a belt drive make sure you have the correct pump. Not all pumps are built to take the side load on the shaft due to the belt drive.



The jury is still somewhat out on that one.  The Barnes/Haldex pump I've been looking at has needle bearings, which I've read aren't as good as ball bearings in terms of dealing with side loads, but I could also always rig up another pulley on a shaft supported by two pillow block bearings and then attach a Lovejoy coupling to one end of the shaft which the pump would connect to.


----------



## dirttracker (Mar 5, 2009)

I wouldn’t use the needle bearing pumps with a belt drive, the bearings don't look like they would hold up very long. The separate shaft is a great idea, plenty of readily available (and probably cheaper) pump choices and the ability to use a larger diameter shaft for more sheave choices.


----------



## Gooserider (Mar 5, 2009)

The stuff I've read all says the Barnes/Haldex pumps are NOT rated for side loads, and it is an application that's explicitly prohibited by the manufacturer.  There is at least one of the clones of the B/H pumps (Dynamic IIRC) that does have ball bearing shaft supports, and advertises that it will take side loads no problem.  So be sure to pick the right pump.  If you already have a B/H pump, then you need to do the jackshaft approach mentioned above.

Gooserider


----------



## NoPaint (Mar 5, 2009)

Don't have a pump but it won't be a problem to find the right one.


----------



## Badfish740 (Mar 5, 2009)

Gooserider said:
			
		

> The stuff I've read all says the Barnes/Haldex pumps are NOT rated for side loads, and it is an application that's explicitly prohibited by the manufacturer.  There is at least one of the clones of the B/H pumps (Dynamic IIRC) that does have ball bearing shaft supports, and advertises that it will take side loads no problem.  So be sure to pick the right pump.  If you already have a B/H pump, then you need to do the jackshaft approach mentioned above.



I checked into the Dynamic pumps and Gooserider is right-they are ball bearing pumps and rated for side loads.  The catch is that a 16 GPM Dynamic is $345.00 as opposed to the Barnes 16GPM which is $159.00!  Conversely, the parts to make up a jackshaft assembly (2 pillow blocks with greaseable ball bearings, 1 pulley, 2 flanged bronze bushings for spacers, 1 half inch steel shaft, and a complete Lovejoy coupling) will only cost me (at a discount) about $80.00 from an industrial supply company that a family member works for.  Unfortunately they don't sell hydraulic components.  So basically, the Dynamic will cost me $345.00 plus a $10 or so pulley and a $5 belt for a grand total of $360.00 plus shipping.  The Haldex/Barnes will cost me $239.00 (pump + jackshaft parts) plus a $5 belt for a grand total of $244.00 plus shipping.  I stand to save about $120 bucks, but I also need to put a some time and thought into how to mount the pillow blocks, keep them lubricated, etc...whereas the Dynamic pump gets a pulley slapped on it and a belt attached-end of story.  Hmmmm...


----------



## NoPaint (Mar 5, 2009)

I am not going to mess around with all that jackshaft stuff to save $120. I would rather have a solid ball bearing holding it all together anyway. $120 is nothing on the grand scheme of things when you get something that works and has much fewer components to boot.


----------



## Badfish740 (Mar 5, 2009)

NoPaint said:
			
		

> I am not going to mess around with all that jackshaft stuff to save $120. I would rather have a solid ball bearing holding it all together anyway. $120 is nothing on the grand scheme of things when you get something that works and has much fewer components to boot.



I hear that.  Plus I may soon be scoring a used but solid 4.5" bore x 24" stroke cylinder from a local hydraulics shop for peanuts.  They're one of the largest rebuilders of hydraulic components in the area.  I heard about them from a farmer in town, so hopefully I can put that saved money toward the Dynamic pump.


----------



## mayhem (Mar 5, 2009)

Mount a set of wheels on one end of the splitter and a collapsable stand on the other end and you can tow it to your splitting location instead of carrying it on the front end.  That might resolve any traction problems and make it easier to mount/dismount the splitter off the front end...from the photos it looks like its got no legs or anything, just hung on the front of a garden tractor...I wonder if its a single duty tractor now?


----------



## LLigetfa (Mar 5, 2009)

There is a single leg at the wedge end.


----------



## wendell (Mar 6, 2009)

Gooserider said:
			
		

> 2. ... so the beam could point straight fore and aft while traveling
> 
> Gooserider



Man, I'd pay money to see that. Badfish cruising through the woods on his John Deere with his splitter out front like Don Quixote.


----------



## WOODBUTCHER (Mar 6, 2009)

Neat pics, looks like a fun project to look forward to this spring!

WB


----------



## NoPaint (Mar 6, 2009)

Actually it seems like a splendid idea to make a vertical splitter trailer. Then you can install the pump up front and run hardline to the back with some sort of a quick disconnect fitting waiting there. Then just plug it up and run it. Similar to the way hydraulic snow plow blades work. I think that is actually the smartest way. The only issue will be permanently mounting the tank somewhere because I am guessing that you would need it to be on the tractor at all times or else the pump would run dry when you are just mowing. Also having the splitter on the back means no more smelling the stinky exhaust.


----------



## dirttracker (Mar 7, 2009)

You could make a mount for the tank and the pump to attach at the front mount points on the frame. Belt drive the pump from the PTO pulley with a spring loaded idler like used on the JD snow blower. When you're done with the splitter for a while, just remove the tank and pump from the tractor. 

By the way, surplus center has the ball bearing 16 gpm pumps for $135. I don't know if they are the Dynamic brand, or something else. My 2008 catalog lists them as Dynamic, but the description currently on the web site does not give a MFG name.


----------



## Jags (Mar 9, 2009)

Just taking a swag...you are looking at about a 1:4 ratio of weight out front, to weight in the back.  400 pounds out the front (at approx same distance as the one pictured) would need ~100 pounds at the back to compensate.  Me thinks that you are going to end up with a difficult steering machine.  400 pounds on the front axle, even as sturdy as the old 110 is, is going to put a lot of strain on it.

Couple that with the typical "forest" floor, and I think you may have problems.  Even the snow throwers were FAR lighter than that.

I think the idea is a really cool one though (for the record).  Maybe with the proper engineering you can reduce the overall weight of the splitter.  That would help things.  Also, as was stated above, your not gonna want to put a side load on the typical 2 stage Haldex pumps.  They just won't take it long term.

I hope you stick with this project. I will be interested in the outcome and performance. :coolsmile: Pics please

If you have any more questions, fire away.  You are into a build/design project that I am fairly well versed in.

Edit: you will want to keep that splitter mounted as close to the front of the tractor as reasonable.  Its the whole "leverage" thing, ya know.


----------

