# Ideal Height For Chopping Block?



## velvetfoot (Apr 12, 2007)

Last time I split a lot of wood by hand I did it on the ground.
This time, I'm thinking of a chopping block.
Is there an ideal height?


----------



## begreen (Apr 12, 2007)

Depends on the length of wood being split and how tall you are. I like it so that I can complete a full stroke - that is to have top of the round at a height so that when the maul strikes it, the maul is roughly parallel to the ground. For me that works out to about a 16-18" high block.


----------



## titan (Apr 12, 2007)

Your back will thank you for using a chopping block.I'm 6'3" and use a block roughly 20" high.This works well for me and keeps my maul out of the dirt too.The only rounds I split on the ground are the ones I can't lift.


----------



## Eric Johnson (Apr 12, 2007)

I've done it both ways, and I think it's easier to leave the chunks on the ground and split them where they are, vs. having to lift them up onto a block. Actually, the only advantage I see in a splitting block is that it keeps your maul from digging into the ground and dropping dirt all over your head and shoulders when you're making the next split.


----------



## Reggie Dunlap (Apr 12, 2007)

I have never used a block, I split right on the ground. I set up a bunch of pieces, split them, and set up more. Two guys can split a lot of wood quickly if one guy sets them up and piles the split pieces while the other guy runs the maul. Using a block adds one more step to the process and slows it down.


----------



## velvetfoot (Apr 12, 2007)

I'm sure there's some energy absorbtion going on.  On one hand you want the surface soft enough so the maul doesn't get roughed up and on the other, the softness of the ground could absorb energy.  The last time, I wound up digging holes-of course that had a plus side too since then the piece wouldn't fall over.


----------



## Highbeam (Apr 12, 2007)

I've also noticed that I spend more time setting up rounds to be split than I actually spend splitting. Which is worse for your back- bending over to pick up rounds and placing them on the block or splitting them on the ground?


----------



## DiscoInferno (Apr 12, 2007)

Lately I do all my splitting in the driveway, since hauling big rounds around back is too much of a pain.  So I use a block to protect the driveway.  The big stuff I split on the ground, I just try not to go all the way through.  What I've found is that lower is better when you need the most power, but higher is better (for the back) when you are doing easy splitting.  Right now I'm working on red oak; the initial 2-3' round might take a few good whacks to section up, but splitting each section is child's play.  So I do the latter on a fairly high block so I don't have to lean way down to grab the splits and toss them on the pile.  Similar for the locust and pear I did earlier.  For elm or red maple, I use a lower block because they require full swings.


----------



## Corie (Apr 12, 2007)

I use about a 18" splitting block.  I know lots of people here split on the ground, but I can't bring myself to do that.  Splitting on the block works pretty darn good for me, so I see no reason to change.  Plus, the area where I split my wood is loading with half-submerged rocks, so I think I'd be sending chards of metal all over the place if I was splitting on the ground.


----------



## Andre B. (Apr 12, 2007)

Corie said:
			
		

> I use about a 18" splitting block.  I know lots of people here split on the ground, but I can't bring myself to do that.  Splitting on the block works pretty darn good for me, so I see no reason to change.



Red Oak, 36" in diameter and 18" long is a good reason.
You cut, tip it over and split it, unless you are a lot stronger then I.


----------



## Corie (Apr 12, 2007)

Luckily, I have yet to contend with large rounds like that.  The last load of tremendously large sugar maple was generously cut into pie shaped wedges that I could pick up and get on the chopping block.


----------



## babalu87 (Apr 12, 2007)

The stump where the tree last stood, I cut it as close to the ground as possible after the tree is felled. I got away from blocks, much more force can be delivered after you pass waist level.


----------



## Corie (Apr 12, 2007)

You're definitely right about that.  I chopped on a 8 inch block at someone else's house and was amazed at the difference.  Luckily I'm so strong it doesn't matter.



haha, yeah, right.


----------



## BrotherBart (Apr 12, 2007)

Some I split on the ground. The rest I sit on a two inch thick block of steel. It is attached to the end of the I-beam on my hydraulic splitter.


----------



## Fire Bug (Apr 12, 2007)

Splitting on the ground I believe, robs your swing of lot of power by not making a solid hit with maul.
 If you use a block, its more moves to make the split, but the block under your round gives you a very solid hit and more bang for your buck.
 Try both. What ever feels better to you, ( There is always the modern aged method of the log splitter as an option. You still have to pick up the round to load the darn thing anyway.

John


----------



## begreen (Apr 12, 2007)

If the ground is frozen, then maybe on the ground is ok. But our ground never freezes up so it easily takes 2-3 times the effort to split on the ground vs on a block.


----------



## budman (Apr 12, 2007)

BrotherBart said:
			
		

> Some I split on the ground. The rest I sit on a two inch thick block of steel. It is attached to the end of the I-beam on my hydraulic splitter.


Amen brother. :coolsmile:


----------



## velvetfoot (Apr 12, 2007)

I like the idea of a short block, but you'd have to be careful not to split that.  
It probably is to vary things anyway for the body's sake.


----------



## jpl1nh (Apr 12, 2007)

When I was just out of highschool I worked on a grounds crew and one of our winter jobs was cutting up firewood for the new confrence center they had.  We were cutting mostly gypsy moth killed oak.  There were three black guys of varying ages who all had split wood since they were kids because thats what they had for heat and cooking.  Watching them split wood was like watching Tiger Woods hit golf balls, amazing.  They never used chopping blocks.  And they could always hit the same place twice.  I aspire to be so good one day.


----------



## Corie (Apr 13, 2007)

I'm working on it I think.  Maybe by the time I'm a little older I might be up to about 3/4 of Eric Johnson.


----------



## Eric Johnson (Apr 13, 2007)

Being able to hit the same place more than once is the whole key. It's just a matter of practice.

My BIL once told me I should take up golf, because I guess he was impressed with my hand/eye coordination. My problem is that I tend to obsess on things I like to do. "Do you really think" I asked, "that the world needs another obsessive golfer?"


----------



## jpl1nh (Apr 13, 2007)

Eric Johnson said:
			
		

> Being able to hit the same place more than once is the whole key. It's just a matter of practice.
> 
> My BIL once told me I should take up golf, because I guess he was impressed with my hand/eye coordination. My problem is that I tend to obsess on things I like to do. "Do you really think" I asked, "that the world needs another obsessive golfer?"


LOL, Is there any other kind of golfer?  My uncle use to use disapproving expression "doesn't amount to a cord of wood".  Guess he'd approve of your choices!!


----------



## velvetfoot (Apr 13, 2007)

Last time I recalled widening my eyes just as I was bringing down the maul.  It seemed to make me more accurate.  I have no idea why.  Perhaps I too should use this technique this year in my pitiful golf outings.


----------



## Rich M (Apr 13, 2007)

I've found that a block that is about as tall as the middle of my shin is perfect for wood between 16" and 18" long. When the ground is frozen or if pieces are large diameter I don't bother with a block.


----------



## jjbaer (Apr 13, 2007)

I think that when you split on the ground that you're able to swing the maul in a longer arc and thus generate more maul head speed and therefore deliver a more powerful blow to the wood....but.......then you usually hit the maul-head on the ground and have to contend with dulling the blade and/or bringing-up dirt.....so.....take your pick....


----------



## Eric Johnson (Apr 13, 2007)

I think you're right about the extra swing distance, cast. And there's nothing wrong with a dull edge on your maul head. I say, the duller the better. You're not trying to cut the grain, but shock it into compliance with blunt force trauma.

If you want to work with a short block, velvet, try cutting a stump down and using the resulting 3- or 4-inch piece. Stumpwood is a lot tougher than regular stemwood, so it should hold up longer. I used to use a piece of elm like that, for obvious reasons. But I found that as long as you're not hitting too hard and too directly, a short block will last a good long time.


----------



## DiscoInferno (Apr 13, 2007)

You do need to be more mindful of good technique for low swings, bringing the elbows down and bending the knees, otherwise you'll hit the log at an angle with the top corner of the maul.  I get lazy sometimes with logs I know will split easily, and that's when the maul swings right through the round, misses the short block, and hits the pavement.  A proper swing will pass straight down through, not continue the arc.  Stiffening your arms and bending your knees also adds a lot of body weight to the maul head.


----------



## Gooserider (Apr 13, 2007)

It depends alot on what you are splitting and the ground that you are on.  

IMHO it gives an optimal hit if the end of the log is about knee high to halfway between knee and hip height.  Higher and you don't get a good swing, lower and you are starting to get out of your bodies efficient muscle use range, and starting to arc back towards your feet if you miss...

Big logs have enough mass that they don't bounce around or move when you hit them, so you can split them on the ground pretty easily (plus who wants to lift them onto a block?)  Smaller stuff - say < 12" or so seems to move under the impact and waste alot of energy punching into the ground (I can feel the ground vibration through my boots) - more of a problem on spongy dirt with a lot of loam in it than it would be on rock or clay soils.  Those logs I find split faster when sitting on a block that is big enough not to move - ideally a low stump.

What I've started doing is actually hauling my 6-12" rounds the extra distance to the stump of a tree I took down last year (about 3-4" high, 2-3' around) and splitting them on that, then picking up the splits and hauling them back to the woodshed - it seems easier than splitting them on the ground next to the woodshed...  My smoke dragon takes longer wood than most stoves, If I was working shorter rounds, I'd probably want a stump that was more on the order of 6-8"

If you don't have a stump handy, some folks have suggested partly burying one of those really gnarly crotch rounds that you weren't even wanting to think about splitting anyway - leave it long to keep the mass and resistance to splitting, bury it to get the height down to match your total height to the optimum hit zone.

Another thing that I haven't tried yet (but it's on my list) is to put the rounds inside an old tire.  This is supposed to help keep them from falling over, and offers the side benefit of helping to keep your maul out of the mud.  Some put the tire on top of the block, and even chain it there.  Seems like a good plan.

Gooserider


----------

