# So, what's better, fat or skinny wedges?



## LLigetfa (Jul 28, 2009)

I see both kinds of wedges on log splitters.  Mine is fat so it spreads the log apart quickly.  I think it shortens the distance the ram has to travel and saves having to tear the pieces apart as much.

I haven't used a splitter with a skinny wedge to compare but I image guys renting/borrowing/working with other splitters could chime in.  It seems the moving wedges on the ram tend to be fatter than the fixed wedges on the end of the beam.  This is probably so the surface of the ram that the oil seal wipes stays out of harm's way.


----------



## triptester (Jul 28, 2009)

The best wedge shape depends on the wood being split. Some wood species are straight grained and these will split quickest with a wide wedge. Tougher stringy wood often split better with a narrow wedge. Many have gone to a wedge that starts out narrow then has spreader wings. On tough to split wood wide wedges require more tonnage .

Commercial splitters built for firewood production do not use wide wedges because they put more strain on the equipment and don't allow for multi-split wedges.


----------



## Henz (Jul 28, 2009)

LLigetfa, you have the same brand of splitter that I have, MTD I beleive although mine is much older. I ahve a 31 ton with an 8hp engine. I ahve the same wedge as yours though and have never had a problem splitting anthing with it. Question, what is that second bolt? the one that is not connected to the ram arm?


----------



## LLigetfa (Jul 28, 2009)

That pic (from another thread) was to show the original bolt that was much smaller than the hole and the threads extended into the shear zone.  I put in a larger bolt with no threads in shear.

I was looking at a double-action splitter that had a narrow wedge that was double-edged where the wedge split in both directions.  If it was a fast moving wedge, and your splitting required a lot of wedge travel, the narrowness wouldn't matter.  With the wide wedge on my splitter, I seldom have to go more than an inch or two into the wood except of course that stringy Elm.

I was thinking about a design that used no hydraulics and used a double-bitted wedge that swung back and forth like a pendulum.


----------



## SolarAndWood (Jul 28, 2009)

LLigetfa said:
			
		

> I was thinking about a design that used no hydraulics and used a double-bitted wedge that swung back and forth like a pendulum.



Don't you think it would just bounce like someone who doesn't know how to swing a maul?  Maybe a circa 1700s French guillotine?


----------



## SolarAndWood (Jul 28, 2009)

The wedges on my two splitters largely follow the big fat end of ram and thin end of beam description.   I can hear the motor load down a little with the big one and rarely hear the small one load down even though it is only a 2 hp electric.


----------



## savageactor7 (Jul 28, 2009)

I'd have to say the wedge on our American splitter is very thin...similar to an axe. Probably as thin as you'll ever see on a splitter. Every year there's a couple of instances where a round won't split and I have to bash it off the wedge with a sledge... and of course that would be elm were talking about.


----------



## LLigetfa (Jul 28, 2009)

That middle pic looks like you hit it more than once with an axe, probably to finish off some stringy stuff stuck on the wedge.  Not sure why you wouldn't just chase it through with another round.

Both the Super Split and the Split Fire have skinny wedges.  I figure the skinny wedge would have less resistance through the wood and there would be no advantage to short cycle the Super Split or the double bit Split Fire.

I didn't mean a free swinging pendulum.  Was thinking something like the rack and pinion Super Split except not linear.  Picture a large wheel like on a steam locomotive and a connecting rod to convert rotation to back and forth.  That way it would have greater leverage as it comes off the apex of the turn and least leverage tangential mid way through the cycle.  Rather than have it return empty, it could stop at the end of its swing, every half turn of the flywheel.


----------



## SolarAndWood (Jul 28, 2009)

LLigetfa said:
			
		

> That middle pic looks like you hit it more than once with an axe, probably to finish off some stringy stuff stuck on the wedge.  Not sure why you wouldn't just chase it through with another round.



That splitter is on its 3rd generation of users and gets used by every member of the extended family.  I think when it still had the gasoline motor on it, it did not have the oomph to finish the gnarly or large stuff.  The electric motor seems to have solved that.  The opening is only 18 inches, so it has to be pretty close to through to follow with another.


----------



## Henz (Jul 29, 2009)

ok, I ahve had that happen to me before when a split gets wedged..There is a very simple fix to this and you dont have to use a sledge hammer to get it off..You simply back the ram out again and place another piece on and split it, the new piece will push the wedged piece off and split it at the same time.

This also works well when your splitter jsut cant seem to split a piece because the further out the ram goes the less "power" it has to split..so I back out the ram and use a shorter piece inbetween the ram and the hard to split piece and 99% of the time it will split.


----------



## computeruser (Jul 29, 2009)

Given the choice, I'd take the fat wedge over the skinny.  Most wood will pop apart faster with this type, which means you can short-stroke most splits and pick up time.  The skinny is what I currently have (Timberwolf TWP1) and it works fine and slices through things that its 4" cylinder would probably not split with a fat wedge.  But if production was my goal, and especially on a wedge-on-ram splitter, I'd want a fat wedge.


----------



## kevin j (Jul 29, 2009)

there was quite a long discussion of thin vs. steep vs. two stage wedges in the las tmonth, either here or I think it was at AS.
Two stage sort of combines some adv of each.
The optimum depends on the type of wood being split.


----------



## Gooserider (Aug 1, 2009)

IMHO, I like the two stage on a wedge-on-ram splitter as a good compromise design - it shears some of the stuff that a fat wedge would crush, and gets the easy stuff to pop on a pretty short stroke.

On a wedge-on-beam type splitter, where the idea is to push the finished splits off the end, I think a skinny wedge is better as it allows the splits to go straight back better, instead of being deflected outwards by the wedge...

Gooserider


----------



## Stephen in SoKY (Aug 1, 2009)

The outermost wing on my 3ph cantilever splitter is 16" wide:






While the other 2 wings are somewhat narrower:






Here's the actual wedge under the wings:


----------



## SolarAndWood (Aug 1, 2009)

Stephen in SoKY said:
			
		

> The outermost wing on my 3ph cantilever splitter is 16" wide:



What happens when you drop that into a 20" round?


----------



## LLigetfa (Aug 1, 2009)

Stephen in SoKY said:
			
		

> The outermost wing on my 3ph cantilever splitter is 16" wide:


My guess is that splitter has a limited range of travel so it has to make up for it by prying it apart wide.


----------



## Stephen in SoKY (Aug 1, 2009)

SolarAndWood said:
			
		

> Stephen in SoKY said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It splits it. My usual method is to split rounds 24" & up into 3 or 4 pieces intially, often I'll take off both sides leaving a rectangular piece from the middle, then split each to size. Oak & Ash present no problem whatever for it, but in all honesty Shagbark Hickory does get dicey at times. Pignut splits better than shagbark, I assume that's due to the species rather than the splitter though. I've often wondered why cantilever splitters failed to be more popular? I use a 4X8 cylinder so cycle time is good. I'll have to measure the throw or arc sometime for whoever inquired above. Mine has 2 pivot holes so it covers a range of wood lengths once set to the approximate length you're splitting.


----------



## SolarAndWood (Aug 1, 2009)

Stephen in SoKY said:
			
		

> It splits it. My usual method is to split rounds 24" & up into 3 or 4 pieces intially



Does this mean you use all the wings on the first pass?


----------



## Stephen in SoKY (Aug 2, 2009)

S&W;, It doesn't act like the 4 way wedges I've seen if that's what you're thinking. I get one split per pass just as if I were using a regular splitter with a standard wedge. I was trying to say that while the wedge reaches virtually to the center of a 24" round, and will split the round into 2 pieces, I prefer to take of the outside third of each round rather than split right down the middle. A habit of mine rather than a limitation of the splitter and one which in retrospect I shouldn't even have mentioned.


----------



## LLigetfa (Aug 2, 2009)

I strive for no larger than a 6 inch face on any split, so up to 6 in rounds I split in two down the middle.   12 inch rounds I split in four down the middle.   18 inch rounds I would slab off into thirds and then split those three ways in what I call a tic-tac-toe (#) pattern.

The sliding wedge on my splitter is 6 inches tall so it will only reach that far in from the edge of any round.  Large rounds won't always cooperate and split in a straight line, especially when going away from the centre.  Really large round I usually split down the centre first and then slab off from there.


----------



## SolarAndWood (Aug 2, 2009)

LLigetfa said:
			
		

> Large rounds won't always cooperate and split in a straight line, especially when going away from the centre.



When I use my big splitter, I get that same lack of cooperation.  However with the little one with the skinny wedge, you can almost slice like a knife.  I split down a cord and a half of pine small for kindling/fire revitalization this week.  It worked really well for that purpose.  My fat wedge makes a mess of pine.


----------



## SolarAndWood (Aug 2, 2009)

Stephen in SoKY said:
			
		

> S&W;, It doesn't act like the 4 way wedges I've seen if that's what you're thinking.



That's exactly what I was thinking.  The search for the cheap and bombproof one pass splitter continues.


----------



## LLigetfa (Aug 2, 2009)

SolarAndWood said:
			
		

> The search for the cheap and bombproof one pass splitter continues.


Search no more.  The chomper From Rainier Hydraulics is your answer.  Up to 4 cord per hour and no saw to sharpen.  Their 0-2-4-8 way adjustable wedge goes from zero to eight-way with the pull of a lever.

http://www.chomper.net/


----------



## SolarAndWood (Aug 2, 2009)

LLigetfa said:
			
		

> SolarAndWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



lol...it seems to meet the bombproof and single pass criteria, fails miserably on the cheap criteria.  For reference, I've got a couple hundred bucks into revitalizing the 2 decades old splitters I currently have.  I'm not convinced that processing logs is that much better than bucking with a good saw unless you are processing a lot of wood.  A single pass splitter on the other hand would save a lot of hours.


----------



## LLigetfa (Aug 2, 2009)

SolarAndWood said:
			
		

> lol...it seems to meet the bombproof and single pass criteria, fails miserably on the cheap criteria.


You didn't specify any criteria.  In this world you can have Good, Fast, Cheap.  Pick any two!

For the price of $38,800.00 when you think of it, if you pay someone to work with you, it doesn't take long for it to pay for itself.  When you compare it to the price of that Bobcat mounted splitter that is emailed and posted everywhere as porn, this thing's got it beat!

http://www.hahnmachinery.com/fp160.html


----------



## SolarAndWood (Aug 2, 2009)

LLigetfa said:
			
		

> In this world you can have Good, Fast, Cheap.  Pick any two!



Indeed.  I've worked in product development for a long time and have experienced those limits time and time again.  However, I believe that the patient and creative can beat the rule though.  While I might not be able to buy a turnkey solution for a few hundred bucks, I'll eventually get one together for that.

I wouldn't even try to compete with Lee & his peers.  I have a lot of respect for those guys and doubt that I could even replicate what they do let alone do it better.   I'd consider significantly reducing my splitting time without spending a lot of money a huge win.


----------



## Gooserider (Aug 2, 2009)

The problem w/ the Chomper, and most other processors, is that they have definite limits on the size and shape of log they can handle...  Usually the logs must be reasonably straight, free from big crotches, and fall within a certain fairly narrow size range - great if you have a tree farm and can harvest lots of trees that meet those specs, but even so you are still likely to have "rejects" that won't fit, and have to be either left in the woods or processed by manual means....

OTOH, a "Mechanically Assisted Human Processor" - AKA a guy w/ a couple of chainsaws and a hydraulic splitter, can deal with just about any log, regardless of size, shape, crotches, etc...  When *I* process a tree, there is just about nothing left in the woods but brush under 2" diameter, and sawdust...

IMHO the biggest bang for the buck in increasing processing speed is to increase the size of the hydraulic pump and upgrade the motor to match - not cheap if buying retail, but less than most other options...  I also don't see it as a real big advantage if one is just doing home processing.  

My personal thought is that IF I had a need to replace the motor or pump due to a failure, I might spend the extra to do the upgrade as opposed to a same-size replacement, but otherwise I'd keep the splitter the way it is.

Gooserider


----------



## SolarAndWood (Aug 2, 2009)

Definitely agree that the “Mechanically Assisted Human Processor” is the way to make firewood unless your operation justifies $50K+ in equipment.  The single pass splitter makes a lot of sense to me as the vast majority of the wood I scrounge and truck home is in the 12-24 diameter range and straight.   I rarely bring home crotches or stickwood.


----------



## LLigetfa (Aug 2, 2009)

SolarAndWood said:
			
		

> I wouldn't even try to compete with Lee & his peers.  I have a lot of respect for those guys and doubt that I could even replicate what they do let alone do it better.   I'd consider significantly reducing my splitting time without spending a lot of money a huge win.


I think the firewood business is a small margin market unless you can cater to a niche market.  For the home heating market, it is either go big or go home.  Cutting labour costs and increasing production is the way to go.  I think wood processors like the Chomper and heat treating kilns will be what separate the men from the boys.


----------



## SolarAndWood (Aug 2, 2009)

I would agree although with wood prices climbing the past couple years and jobs disappearing, there are a lot more people trying to make a little money doing it.  Last year I didn't see much under $50/fc and it was generally $60, this year I've seen as low as $35.


----------



## fyrwoodguy (Aug 4, 2009)

i like multi-skinny





the only double sharpened blade is the veticle one in the center all others are one way.
log dia. 24".....11mins to the cord,now that's chompin' !!




40 more cord to go.......1,000 cds no sharpen yet.  ;-)


----------



## SolarAndWood (Aug 4, 2009)

fyrwoodguy said:
			
		

> i like multi-skinny



That's mint.  Do you have a picture of the wedge without a round in it?  Who makes it?  5" cylinder pushing it?


----------



## fyrwoodguy (Aug 4, 2009)

http://www.cord-master.com/


----------



## SolarAndWood (Aug 4, 2009)

That thing looks bombproof.  Does it ever fail to fully split a round?


----------



## fyrwoodguy (Aug 4, 2009)

oh "they will get stuck"......you'll soon learn how to position the round before starting the split & the quality,size & specie of wood too  :-/ 

garbage in = garbage mash out  :sick:


----------



## SolarAndWood (Aug 5, 2009)

When they get stuck, do you pop the pins on the wings and rotate the wedge on the bottom pin or slam the round in reverse with a sledge?


----------

