# Fast cycle vertical splitter



## Ashful (Mar 28, 2017)

Another recent thread on log splitters had me considering how much slower I've been with my 11-second Huskee 22-ton splitter, versus the 6-second Iron and Oak I used previously.  I think it's time to put together my list of wishes, and go shopping for a new splitter, having already amortized my cost of two new stoves.

Here's the requirements.  Is there any splitter on the market that meets them?

Splitting force:  22 tons minimum
Cycle time:  6 seconds
Configuration:  Horizontal / Vertical convertible

The closest I find now is the I&O 20-ton fast cycle vertical/horizontal:  http://www.ironandoak.com/vhmodels/20tonfc.html

What else is out there?  I used to rent one of these I&O's, and would stall it in tough wood, so I would favor something with a little more bottom end on it.


----------



## Ashful (Mar 28, 2017)

Oh, I should add that going to a larger pump and motor on my machine would be an option to consider, if someone has already engineered a solution.  My time available for splitting wood is too preciously little to have my machine down for a few weeks, while I dicker around with testing my own (new) solution.

Getting my 4" cylinder to 6 seconds would require a 22 - 24 GPM pump on a 400+ cc engine, something you're not likely going to mount on a Huskee 22-ton chassis, but what's been done by some of the Huskee owners out there?  Honda does make vertical shaft OHV 389cc and even 688cc v-twin power plants:

Honda GXV390 + 22 GPM pump = 6 second cycle times for < $1000
Honda GXV630 + 28 GPM pump = 4.5 second cycle times for < $1400

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01EGLLE26/?tag=hearthamazon-20

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01EGLLCJQ/?tag=hearthamazon-20


----------



## Bad LP (Mar 28, 2017)

What about a splitter that has a multi wedge and a log loader? I know my landscaper just bought one that has the single, cross or hexagon head. If you are splitting 6 pieces at a time then the speed factor becomes kinda moot.


----------



## woodhog73 (Mar 28, 2017)

Don't really have any knowledge with iron and oak. However I came real close to buying an entry level splitter from them. It was a fixed horizontal beam 15 ton with a Honda engine. Local outdoor furnace boiler dealer had one. Says he produces 10 cords a year with it to feed his outdoor furnace. On a 15 ton. 

I would have purchased it because I wanted the Honda engine. But then for less $$ I found the Gravley with a subaru engine. So I was sold.

That said the entry level I&O splitter was very impressive on build quality. It did not look like a cheap made item. I really wanted that splitter but couldn't get over the cost for only 15 tons.


----------



## Ashful (Mar 28, 2017)

Bad LP said:


> What about a splitter that has a multi wedge and a log loader? I know my landscaper just bought one that has the single, cross or hexagon head. If you are splitting 6 pieces at a time then the speed factor becomes kinda moot.



Those are great for folks who can choose their trees, but I'd like to see him get the 1000+ pound rounds I often drag home up into that splitter, and then push a 6-way wedge thru them!

I am usually working oak, often above 40" diameter, sometimes over 50".


----------



## Tar12 (Mar 28, 2017)

Ashful there are several splitter builders out there that will build whatever your heart desires...


----------



## Jags (Mar 28, 2017)

I have always said that if my big splitter ever chews up a pump I will be mounting a bigger engine and 28GPM pump to it.  Bigger hoses are also suggested.

Not sure of any on the market that hit those specs.


----------



## Ashful (Mar 28, 2017)

Had just a few minutes to check spec's this afternoon, and it looks like a 270cc motor will hit the torque and hp numbers I'd need to drive a 22 gpm pump, and hit <10 second cycles.  The next step up to 28 gpm would put me < 6 seconds full cycle.  That's a 3-second unloaded downstroke, for what might be a fairly easy conversion.  All pressures would be kept the same, just need to verify valve and hose capacities and drops.

This brings up the question, how fast is TOO fast?  At 8 inches per second, that doesn't give a ton of time to get any errant fingers out of the wedge's path, or release the valve handle if you do feel a pinch.


----------



## Tar12 (Mar 28, 2017)

My current splitter numbers...
28 Ton
Cylinder 5"x24"x2"
Honda 13 H.P.
Pump 22 gpm
Cycle time..10 second
Hydro fluid capacity 30 gallon
Its fast enough you really need 3 people to run it to get max. productivity out of it. It keep us hopping.


----------



## Bad LP (Mar 28, 2017)

Ashful said:


> Those are great for folks who can choose their trees, but I'd like to see him get the 1000+ pound rounds I often drag home up into that splitter, and then push a 6-way wedge thru them!
> 
> I am usually working oak, often above 40" diameter, sometimes over 50".


Holy crap you can't think outside of "your" wood. That is a far cry from what normal people deal with.


----------



## Ashful (Mar 28, 2017)

Bad LP said:


> Holy crap you can't think outside of "your" wood. That is a far cry from what normal people deal with.



I'm building a splitter for me, not for normal people.


----------



## Ashful (Mar 28, 2017)

Tar12 said:


> My current splitter numbers...
> 28 Ton
> Cylinder 5"x24"x2"
> Honda 13 H.P.
> ...



Anything you'd change, or does it seem pretty ideal.  Which Honda motor?  I'm graphing commercial splitters by hp and torque vs. speed and capacity, trying to find the sweet spot.

I usually split with one partner, or alone, so I can't claim I'll be getting maximum capacity out of the splitter.  But I can claim I'll wait a lot less time on watching the wedge go up and down.

I wonder if anyone has compiled a list of motors that cross to the mounting pattern of the Briggs 675 that Huskee used on these splitters, not that drilling a few new mounting holes would be a show-stopper.


----------



## Tar12 (Mar 28, 2017)

It is the GX 390. For my 53 yr old body and the reality that comes with that...its all I can handle or want. My only complaint has nothing to do with the splitters ability to split...but the log lift itself...it will lift anything you put on it and that includes with the bobcat...only done that once...lol When splitting solo I use the log lift table as a staging area and pile it as full as I can. If your setting on uneven ground...which is most of time...the vibration from the splitter has a tendency to let the stacked rounds slide off after you get down to the last 2-3...but I am going to remedy that by adding some wings. I cut to a specific length but will add a few inches to the overall width for good measure.


----------



## jotul8e2 (Mar 28, 2017)

Here are two production units that should work for you:

http://www.allwoodlogsplitters.com/musclewood-series

http://www.timberwolfcorp.com/tw-6-log-splitter/

Both companies have excellent reputations.


----------



## Tar12 (Mar 28, 2017)

jotul8e2 said:


> Here are two production units that should work for you:
> 
> http://www.allwoodlogsplitters.com/musclewood-series
> 
> ...


Just about pulled the trigger on the Musclewood series myself but went with the Oak Series..


----------



## Ashful (Mar 28, 2017)

jotul8e2 said:


> Here are two production units that should work for you:
> 
> http://www.allwoodlogsplitters.com/musclewood-series
> 
> ...


Both excellent splitters, but aimed (and priced) at commercial volume, and neither go vertical.  Not really fitting the bill for one man trying to reduce the time required to split 10 cords per year.

I ran some numbers, based on a survey of every 22'ish ton splitter produced by Iron and Oak and Speeco (and their associated brands).  It appears a Honda GXV389 (10.2 hp / 17.8 ft-lb) paired with a 22 GPM pump will be the perfect pairing to cut cycle time of my machine in half.  Now to see if it will fit.

BTW, I noticed most splitters have spec'd cycle times shorter than their pump size and cylinder should support.  I see a lot of splitters spec'd with 12 and 13 second cycle times with a 4" x 24" cylinder on an 11 GPM rated pump, which should yield a 14.2 second cycle time.  Either they're spinning those pumps above rated RPM, or they're optimistic in their spec's.


----------



## jotul8e2 (Mar 28, 2017)

Ashful said:


> Both excellent splitters, but aimed (and priced) at commercial volume, and neither go vertical.



Sorry, missed the vertical feature.

Manufacturers being over optimistic on the specifications?  Who would ever have suspected it?  But really, there is going to be some variance on any hydraulic system in the field.

My BIL has an interesting set up.  He rigged a pivoting vertical post and arm with an electric winch and can winch massive pieces up to his three point (Brave 22 ton) horizontal splitter.  The pulley is at the end of the arm and is positioned so that the round can be lowered directly on to the beam.  Of course, if you have an 8,000 lb. tractor attached to your splitter it makes it easier to keep it up right when lifting four or five hundred pounds. We have not found anything yet we cannot split if we noodle it a bit, but there are some we should not have tried.  We have bowed the beam some and broke the yoke on the ram once.  There is more to working with really large rounds than just the pump, engine, and ram.


----------



## Jags (Mar 29, 2017)

Ashful said:


> I'm building a splitter for me, not for normal people.


We have GOT to be related in some way.


----------



## triptester (Mar 29, 2017)

The reason advertised cycle times and reality don't match is because those times are based on only pump and cylinder specs. They don't figure in fiction and flow loss in hoses , control valve, and fittings. It is common for hydraulic fittings and cylinders to have internal openings half their stated size.
To get the full benefit of a larger engine and pump the whole system would have to be changed. Larger control valve, hoses, fittings, hydraulic tank, and cylinder would have to be modified to accept the larger hoses that would be required.
Been there done that.


----------



## Ashful (Mar 29, 2017)

triptester said:


> The reason advertised cycle times and reality don't match is because those times are based on only pump and cylinder specs. They don't figure in fiction and flow loss in hoses , control valve, and fittings. It is common for hydraulic fittings and cylinders to have internal openings half their stated size.
> To get the full benefit of a larger engine and pump the whole system would have to be changed. Larger control valve, hoses, fittings, hydraulic tank, and cylinder would have to be modified to accept the larger hoses that would be required.
> Been there done that.


Good points, triptester, but you mixed up what I was saying.  They're advertising cycle times that are faster than the rated pump GPM's, not slower.  It's possible the splitter mfg'rs are rating their cycle times at max throttle, unladen, and in this scenario they're spinning the pump faster than rated RPM.

On the valve and hoses, they seem generously oversized on my splitter, so I anticipate I might get away with leaving most of them as-is.  But I will be testing the flow rate and pressure drops throughout the system, if I pursue this upgrade, to be sure I'm not bottle-necking this expensive pump and motor on a cheap hose or valve.  Eyeballing it from afar, it appears my primary restriction is going to be the cylinder fittings, which I think are only 1/2" NPT.  The valve fittings and hoses are all larger than that, if memory serves me.


----------



## Ashful (Mar 29, 2017)

Jags said:


> We have GOT to be related in some way.


Some relatives on my paternal grandmother's side moved to Illinois.  Maybe we are!

Where would you rate electric start on your list of wants or needs?  I was hunting for a GXV390 with onboard fuel tank and recoil start, but it seems I cannot buy such a beast.  Electric start adds at least $250 to the project, but maybe I'll be glad I have it on cold Saturday mornings in February, when I'm trying to pull over a 400 cc motor coupled to a 22 GPM pump.  I'm just anticipating the battery may be dead when I want it, given how long the splitter can sometimes sit out in the snow and cold between sessions.

I hauled the splitter up from the wood lot to my shop after work today.  Measurements of the motor and pump mounting start tonight, if the evening goes as planned.


----------



## Tar12 (Mar 29, 2017)

Ashful said:


> Some relatives on my paternal grandmother's side moved to Illinois.  Maybe we are!
> 
> Where would you rate electric start on your list of wants or needs?  I was hunting for a GXV390 with onboard fuel tank and recoil start, but it seems I cannot buy such a beast.  Electric start adds at least $250 to the project, but maybe I'll be glad I have it on cold Saturday mornings in February, when I'm trying to pull over a 400 cc motor coupled to a 22 GPM pump.  I'm just anticipating the battery may be dead when I want it, given how long the splitter can sometimes sit out in the snow and cold between sessions.
> 
> I hauled the splitter up from the wood lot to my shop after work today.  Measurements of the motor and pump mounting start tonight, if the evening goes as planned.



I was talked out of the electric start feature as they had numerous complaints about reliability?Are you aware of Hondas decompression start up feature?
Honda’s automatic mechanical decompression system is designed to give you quicker, easier starts.

This system, which is connected to the camshaft, reduces compression by opening the exhaust valve slightly when the engine is being started.  This reduces the amount of force needed to start the engine and improves starting performance. It does indeed work...my old 8 H.P. Briggs took a act of God to get that damn thing to roll over and fire in cold weather. The Honda so far has fired every time the first time...I love that!


----------



## velvetfoot (Mar 29, 2017)

How about a Subaru?
http://www.subarupower.com/products/engines/ex40-overhead-cam-engine/ex40-technical-information/
http://www.brandnewengines.com/EX400DM5030.aspx

Note from description on second link:

Chain-driven Overhead Cam design offers superior power and performance with an automatic decompression system to reduce the required pulling force by 30 to 40 percent, and ensure starting on the first pull. EX engines start instantly – even at temperatures as cold as -10 degrees C – without any perceptible kickback. 

I can attest to the easy starting nature of my EX27.


----------



## Tar12 (Mar 29, 2017)

Ashful whats the difference between the GX390 and the GXV390? I found all kinds of GX390s for sale and believe them to be one in the same...


----------



## Ashful (Mar 29, 2017)

Tar12 said:


> I was talked out of the electric start feature as they had numerous complaints about reliability?Are you aware of Hondas decompression start up feature?
> Honda’s automatic mechanical decompression system is designed to give you quicker, easier starts.
> 
> This system, which is connected to the camshaft, reduces compression by opening the exhaust valve slightly when the engine is being started.  This reduces the amount of force needed to start the engine and improves starting performance. It does indeed work...my old 8 H.P. Briggs took a act of God to get that damn thing to roll over and fire in cold weather. The Honda so far has fired every time the first time...I love that!


Yep, the Honda GX on my generator has this feature.  It's very nice, but I'm thinking that a 22 GPM direct-coupled pump running ATF in sub-freezing weather is going to offer quite a bit of resistance, decomp or not.



velvetfoot said:


> How about a Subaru?
> http://www.subarupower.com/products/engines/ex40-overhead-cam-engine/ex40-technical-information/
> http://www.brandnewengines.com/EX400DM5030.aspx
> 
> I can attest to the easy starting nature of my EX27.


Yes!  I've been meaning to check their line-up, but haven't made the time for it, yet.  I have a Subaru EX27 on my Little Wonder blower, and it's a champ, but not quiet! 



Tar12 said:


> Ashful whats the difference between the GX390 and the GXV390? I found all kinds of GX390s for sale and believe them to be one in the same...


"V" = "vertical".  The GX390 has a horizontal shaft.


----------



## Tar12 (Mar 30, 2017)

They are saying if they don't have it in stock that they can get it for you...

http://tewarehouse.com/GXV390-DE33


----------



## Ashful (Mar 30, 2017)

Thanks for the link.  They're $100 cheaper than Northern Tool on that model.  Unfortunately, I seem to be coming to the conclusion a GXV390 is going to be a little light for a 22 gpm pump.  I'm going to want roughly 13 hp, and the 390 is only 10 hp.  This puts me into the GXV6xx OHV V-twins for Honda, and Subaru has no vertical shaft engine larger than 5 hp.

I'm beginning to wonder it if might be easier or cheaper to convert to a horizontal shaft, and just mount the pump right to the motor with one of the commercially-available mounts.  It would improve ground clearance, but it would also change the geometry of the hoses for standing the beam vertical, and possibly make the pump more prone to getting whacked by half-rounds falling off the beam or log cradle.

Got some measurements last night.  Just need to think thru the options, now.  I don't think there's a 13 hp vertical motor on the market today with a gas tank on it, which adds other complicating factors, but I could be wrong on that.

_edit:  Actually, Briggs makes one!  The 479cc Vanguard 16.0 hp vertical V-twin shows a fuel tank option.

edit part duex:  Nope.  The Briggs site appears to have incorrect information, according to one dealer I checked, who called Briggs direct to confirm._


----------



## jetsam (Mar 30, 2017)

Briggs makes a whole line of vertical shaft riding mower engines, many of which are far beefier and cheaper than that Honda.

If you can live with the added complexity and hassle of the electric start, here's a 17.5HP Briggs for $530.


----------



## Jags (Mar 30, 2017)

My smaller splitter wears a 14.5 hp Briggs electric start (vertical) that was a donor motor from a lawnmower that blew out the transaxle.  Smooth and quite.  I have had one issue to date with the motor and that was the silly little solenoid at the bottom of the carb bowl (anti backfire solenoid).

Both my splitters are electric start.  Love it.  On my big boy the start/stop switch is 10" from the control lever.  If I need to take a minute or three to reposition rounds or move some splits or whatever, I shut the splitter down.  Ready to split - bump the starter and grab the control lever.  I might start/stop that splitter 10 times in a couple hours splitting session.  Cold weather?  Who cares.  Spin that sucker over till its running. I personally wouldn't build one without that option.


----------



## Ashful (Mar 30, 2017)

Thanks, guys.  Unfortunately, the Briggs site is wrong, according to the tech guys at Jacks Small Engines.  They couldn't find an ordering code for a vertical Vanguard v-twin with a fuel tank, so they called Briggs, and were told that option is actually NOT available.  Their web site appears to be wrong.

The only options I have found with fuel tank are:

Briggs 21R7070079F1 (10.5 hp) $710 with recoil starter and tank
Honda V390RTDA23 (11 or 13 hp, depending on who you believe) $844 with electric start and tank

The guy at Jacks said I should be prepared to wait 7 - 10 days for repair parts on the Honda, whereas the Briggs parts always ship from stock, but I don't think that's a deal-killer for me.  My only issue is that both seem under-powered for a 22 GPM pump, and there is no larger motor with a fuel tank.

If I grind the motor mounting plate off my machine, weld in a new plate lower, I could convert to horizontal shaft.  Then I could mount the pump to the motor, transverse under the beam.  That's major surgery, which is nothing I haven't done before, but I was looking to make this a simple bolt-on project.

On a whim, I decided to see if there were any 35-ton machines with 22 GPM pumps, which I could just swap down to a 4" cylinder and get my desired cycle times.  They all have motors under 300 cc, which seems to be way under-sized, by account of both the pump mfg'rs and extrapolating the horsepower of 20 - 22 ton machines at 11 and 16 gpm.


----------



## JRHAWK9 (Mar 30, 2017)

I have -THIS- one which states a 12sec cycle time.  It has a 4.5" dia. cylinder and a 16gpm pump.  I timed it when I first got it and it pretty much had a 12sec cycle time on the nads.  

I too would like to speed it up and thought about putting on a larger pump.  This would also probably require a larger engine too.


----------



## Jags (Mar 30, 2017)

Theoretically a 22 gpm pump should be able to be run with 11hp.  It probably won't allow for a constant dead head, but for shorter bursts it should pull it.  I run a 16 GMP pump with an 8hp and have no power issues. It is very typical to have a 1:2 ratio of HP to GPM.


----------



## jetsam (Mar 30, 2017)

Ashful said:


> The only options I have found with fuel tank are:



You want to pay 50% extra for 50% less horsepower to get a built in tank? Those riding mower engines have fuel pumps, so the tank can go wherever.

If you want to get fancy, here's a matching Briggs tank, but I wouldn't pay that.


----------



## Ashful (Mar 30, 2017)

jetsam said:


> You want to pay 50% extra for 50% less horsepower to get a built in tank? Those riding mower engines have fuel pumps, so the tank can go wherever.


Yes I'm willing to pay more to have an on-board tank, unless I can come up with a more suitable place to mount one.  The added cost is not anything I'm worried about, given we're discussing a difference of perhaps only a few hundred dollars on a tool I'll be using for the next 20 years.

There's not much to this splitter, as in places to mount things like a fuel tank, where it won't be in the way of something, or at risk of getting hit during use.  The little bit of free space I'm going to have under the engine mount will likely be used by a battery, for the electric start function, not that I'd want to mount a fuel tank there.  But if you have a good idea on how to rig a separate tank for the larger v-twin, I'm all ears!


----------



## triptester (Mar 30, 2017)

In order   to use a 22 gpm or larger pump on your present splitter you have to totally reconfigure the splitter. A larger hydraulic reservoir with at least a  1 1/4" suction line,3/4" or larger hose pump to control valve, and a  1 1/4' return hose.


----------



## Ashful (Mar 31, 2017)

triptester said:


> In order   to use a 22 gpm or larger pump on your present splitter you have to totally reconfigure the splitter. A larger hydraulic reservoir with at least a  1 1/4" suction line,3/4" or larger hose pump to control valve, and a  1 1/4' return hose.


Yes, this is mostly correct.  We're in agreement on the 3/4" line from pump to valve, but at least half of the 22 GPM pumps use 1" lines on the suction, and I see no reason the return needs to be larger than suction.  I was looking at my valve and line sizes just yesterday, and here's where we stand:

cylinder:  1/2" NPT ports
valve:  3/4" NPT inlet and return lines, with 1/2" NPT port to cylinder
supply line:  1/2", easily swapped to 3/4"
suction:  3/4" with 3/4" NPT fitting into bottom of reservoir
return:  3/4" thru 3/4" NPT filter assembly into tank

It's not a problem for me to punch new holes and weld new bungs into the tank, for the line sizes I need, but it does take this project beyond the simple turning of wrenches I had planned.  Also, I'm not sure how I'd get the tank clean of metal chips after drilling for the new bungs, which is a concern, as the filter in this system is on the return line!

This may push me toward plan B:  buy a 35-ton splitter, and downgrade to a 4" cylinder.  This would get me the tank fitting (and line) sizes I need, and give me an opportunity to shop for a 4" cylinder with 3/4" NPT ports.  Unfortunately, I haven't found a 35-ton consumer-grade splitter with the horsepower I need, most are under 300cc.  It also gets me a much heavier beam than I need for 22 tons, which will just frustrate me every time I want to move the splitter around in my lot, since I end up doing that by hand (without hooking it up to the tractor) most of the time.


----------



## Tar12 (Mar 31, 2017)

This gives you a excuse to buy a ATV to move your splitter around.I leave mine hooked up to Arctic Cat 400 at all times to move it around.


----------



## Ashful (Mar 31, 2017)

Sounds fun!   I use my compact utility tractor to tow the splitter anytime I need to move it more than 50 feet, but typically just muscle it around by hand for shorter distances.  The pain of storing more equipment indoors outweighs the enjoyment I'd get out of an ATV, on my small property.


----------



## Tar12 (Mar 31, 2017)

Ashful said:


> Sounds fun!   I use my compact utility tractor to tow the splitter anytime I need to move it more than 50 feet, but typically just muscle it around by hand for shorter distances.  The pain of storing more equipment indoors outweighs the enjoyment I'd get out of an ATV, on my small property.


You are not thinking correctly my friend...you buy more land and conquer!


----------



## velvetfoot (Mar 31, 2017)

If it's flat, this works fine.  Amazing what a little grade can do though.


----------



## kennyp2339 (Mar 31, 2017)

I think I only ever had 1 log that I couldn't split with my I&O 20 ton fs, all I did was make a new purchase point with my chain saw and then line the wedge up with that.


----------



## Ashful (Mar 31, 2017)

I used to rent one of those, and I would stop it several times each day, running thru big gnarly ash and oak rounds.  My Huskee 22 ton only makes 30% more force at the same pressure, but that extra 30% must put me in the sweet spot for splitting tougher rounds.

Now, for full disclosure, I was running a higher fraction of tough woods on the I&O, since I was trying to split most of my straight and easy stuff by hand back then.  Now that I own a splitter, I just do all of my wood there.


----------



## jetsam (Mar 31, 2017)

Tar12 said:


> You are not thinking correctly my friend...you buy more land and conquer!



He could even buy some land that has a different house on it so he doesn't have to split 10 cords a year...  that'd give him a lot more time to play with the ATV!


----------



## Ashful (Mar 31, 2017)

jetsam said:


> He could even buy some land that has a different house on it so he doesn't have to split 10 cords a year...  that'd give him a lot more time to play with the ATV!


I don't have to do it now!  But I sure do enjoy having the wood stoves going on a cold rainy evening in late March.


----------



## Ashful (Apr 5, 2017)

A little update, for those following along.  I have been working two options, as I find time:

Option 1 = 8.3 sec. cycle time:
1a.  16 GPM pump
1b.  Upgrade engine to ~300cc (or just go GVX390, anticipating a future 22 GPM upgrade)
1c.  Upgrade suction and return lines to 1".  Use thin-wall steel 3/4" NPT with bore ~ standard 1" fittings.
1d.  Sell old engine and pump on ebay.

Option 2 = 6 sec. cycle time:
2a.  Drain and drill axle tank for 1-1/4" suction and return lines.
2b.  Weld in new tank fittings.  Clean and paint.
2c.  Upgrade pump to 22 GPM (requires welding new pump mount, or cutting out old and buying).
2d.  Upgrade engine to GVX390
2e.  Upgrade valve to 3/4"
2f.  Upgrade cylinder to 3/4" ports ($430 cylinder!)
2g.  Upgrade all suction and return lines to 1-1/4".
2h.  Upgrade supply and recyc lines to 3/4".
2i.  Sell old engine, pump, cylinder, valve, etc.

Assuming I sell all associated materials at roughly one-third of their replacement (likely excepting that cylinder), the cost difference isn't enough to heavily weigh in the decision.

As fun as Option 2 sounds, it has a very high PITA factor, for diminishing returns on performance.  I could pull off option 1 in one evening.


----------



## kennyp2339 (Apr 6, 2017)

Ashful said:


> I could pull off option 1 in one evening.


8.3 SEC is fast enough when working by yourself, also don't forget a bigger filter as your moving more fluid faster.


----------



## Jags (Apr 6, 2017)

I have option one in my small splitter.  16gpm pump with 4" x 20" ( I am guessing that your cylinder is a 24" throw).  Makes for a nice speed.  Not lightning, but pretty decent.  Never timed it, but I am also using pretty much all 1/2" lines on the pressure side, which might have a small impact on the speed. 

I don't get real caught up on the line sizes (as long as reasonable) on the pressure side of the pump.  Yes, smaller lines may increase fluid speed and friction (heat), but fluid doesn't compress.  Its going somewhere and the only two places it can go is through the proper route OR the bypass (pressure relief).  I also have a gauge on mine.  At no load and full throttle there is virtually no measurable pressure in the system.  This tells me that there is very little "restriction" using 1/2" lines.

I have thought about it a little and I would like to offer an honest comparison...my garden hose.  System pressure of my domestic water never exceeds 65 psi and the pump doesn't kick on till a low pressure limit of 55 PSI.  I can run in excess of 5 gallons of water in a minute through a 1/2" garden hose.  I am sure there is some fancy math using area and pressure and blah, blah that will prove out the line capacity at a given pressure, but even at a couple hundred PSI I can't see an issue considering the system is designed for much higher pressures.  Heat is the only place I could see trouble, but the tank on my small splitter never exceeds warm, but in all honesty it probably doesn't get run more than an hour or so before shutdown (beer time). 
Just some random thoughts....


----------



## Ashful (Apr 6, 2017)

Jags said:


> I have option one in my small splitter.  16gpm pump with 4" x 20" ( I am guessing that your cylinder is a 24" throw).  Makes for a nice speed.  Not lightning, but pretty decent.





kennyp2339 said:


> 8.3 SEC is fast enough when working by yourself, also don't forget a bigger filter as your moving more fluid faster.


Yes, I should have listed the filter.  In my head, it was included with "upgrade return line".

I'm starting to lean heavily toward Option 1.  The only decision I need to make then, would be whether to go with a 400cc motor, to leave open the possibility of upgrading to 22 GPM in the future.  More money, noise, more stopping to refuel the bigger motor... or just find something closer to 300cc with a plan to stay at 16 GPM.

There is a safety factor that should be considered, as well.  Not so much for myself, but for the two kids who may eventually end up using this.  When is the safety gained by not having to prop a 30" round up on a foot plate too long while waiting for a too-slow wedge, exceeded by your reaction time to the errant pinched finger in the path of a too-fast wedge?


----------



## Jags (Apr 6, 2017)

I don't really find myself irritated from the speed produced on the little splitter (nor the need for more)- occasionally I do with the big boy.  Point being that the speed aimed for is subjective from one person to another.  I doubt the 2 second differential between pumps will make or break the safety factor.  2 seconds is a world of time for human reaction.


----------



## Ashful (Apr 6, 2017)

True on the safety, but just to highlight that point, it's 2 seconds over 48 inches travel.  The difference between almost 6 inches per second and 8 inches per second, roughly 40% faster.

Will start surveying the motor landscape now, hunting for anything in the 290 - 400 cc space.


----------



## Ashful (May 6, 2017)

It is done.  Went with the Intek 344cc engine on the 16 gpm pump, with an upgraded suction line.  Runs like a champ, except I haven't figured out a throttle solution.  This particular motor was only available with remote throttle, and I'd like to convert it to a local or fixed throttle.  This one also has the choke (auto) tied to the throttle, which complicates that endeavor.

Anyone who knows what a accessory controls might be available for the Briggs Intek engines, I'm all ears!  I don't have a good plan, yet.


----------



## Tar12 (May 7, 2017)

Well done! I have noticed in the description from some engine suppliers they will list what that particular series of engine is used commonly used for..possibly providing you some insight?


----------



## Jags (May 7, 2017)

https://www.jackssmallengines.com/j...d=cj0keqjwi7vibrdpo9w8y7ct6zcbeiqa1cwv2jllwvi
So add a throttle control.


----------



## Ashful (May 7, 2017)

Jags said:


> https://www.jackssmallengines.com/j...d=cj0keqjwi7vibrdpo9w8y7ct6zcbeiqa1cwv2jllwvi
> So add a throttle control.


Yahbut... the best place to mount a throttle on this splitter happens to be on the engine itself!  I am hoping Briggs makes some sort of throttle control that bolts right to, or in place of, that throttle plate where the cable would connect.

I gotta find out what that wire is on the throttle plate, shown right next to my pick awl in the last photo.  I'm guessing it might be an ignition kill point, but haven't found much Brigg's documentation on this engine, or any sort of install guide.


----------



## Ashful (May 7, 2017)

Jackpot!  I think I found the part.  Ordering the part, will let you know how it pans out.


----------



## Jags (May 8, 2017)

Not unusual for Briggs engines that all the way down is kill, all the way up is choke.  Makes for a one cable design.  My big boy is that way and it works fine.


----------



## Ashful (May 8, 2017)

Yeah, I've seen this... some love it and some hate it.  I can see both sides of their argument, but I think it will work fine for me.  I'm just glad it has a choke, the original engine just had a primer bulb and no choke, which made for a fun start-up in dead-cold weather.

I found there is one MF = Manual Friction version of this engine, with different electrics than mine, but otherwise almost identical.  I compared the BOM's for the throttle and governor assemblies, and they're identical, minus this throttle control and one governor spring.  So I have those parts on order thru Jack's, and should see them by the end of this week.  I'll let you know how the conversion goes.

Next up, I need to figure out how to mount a battery to this rig, and configure the electric start.  I've already increased the weight on the engine mounting plate 2.6x (28 to 73 lb.), while simultaneously moving the COG farther from its welded mounting points.  So, while the most convenient place to mount a battery seems to be under that motor mount, near the pump, I'd rather not add the weight there.  Maybe I can hang one under the trailering beam?  I think I already have a battery that might work, a 12V 7ah sealed unit that came with my son's Peg Perego John Deere riding tractor toy.


----------



## velvetfoot (May 8, 2017)

Nice.  How about the start/kill switch?  My lawn tractor with an Intek V twin has a key, naturally.  There's a relay involved too, I bet.  I think a magneto charges the battery, to some degree.  Maybe if you stuck with the remote choke/throttle you could mount the key switch (or whatever) close to it.


----------



## Ashful (May 9, 2017)

I have to look at the charging / alternator system schematic, but I think that single wiring post by the throttle is probably a pull-to-ground kill point.  If so, I can just punch a hole in the sheetmetal throttle control plate and install a toggle switch or N/O momentary contact button there, and wire it to ground.


----------



## Jags (May 9, 2017)

I use a DPDT, momentary switch for the start and stop. Also the throttle cable in full down is a kill as well.  I find I use that more than the switch.


----------



## Ashful (May 10, 2017)

I might copy your setup.  I doubt I'd use the kill switch under normal use, as you said, the throttle is the way to go.  But I might be glad it's there, if the throttle malfunctions.


----------



## Highbeam (May 11, 2017)

I love this thread. My huskee 22 has the flathead briggs which may die someday and a pump with oozy gaskets so I would love to upgrade when the chance presents itself.

In addition to this thread I have found another good one that may have helped you out. He vent horizontal and it works too!

http://www.arboristsite.com/community/threads/huskee-22-ton-motor-replacement-for-dummys.308403/

This website sometimes has problems linking to other forums even if the information is applicable so I may have to try a few things. Think arborist site.


----------



## Ashful (May 11, 2017)

I'll post a full BOM and costs, once I've proven this thing in.  It was a very easy upgrade, but I want to prove it works well, before sharing it with others.  If you need the info before that, just PM me for it.


----------



## Highbeam (May 11, 2017)

Looking over my huskee 22, seems a big restriction is the very small metal line that feeds the ram to extend. Looks like 3/8"!


----------



## Ashful (May 12, 2017)

Highbeam said:


> Looking over my huskee 22, seems a big restriction is the very small metal line that feeds the ram to extend. Looks like 3/8"!



Yes, it is.  But I checked the size of the line Speeco uses on the 28 and 35 ton splitters, both of which ship with a 16 GPM pump, and all three use the same exactly line there.

When I upgraded my pump, before swapping motors, I did notice the old motor labored most when on the up-stroke.  I didn't experiment to see if the cause was that line or the valve, but it is when that line would be at lower pressure and it's restrictive behavior most noticeable.

I did a quick search for SAE, AN, and other flare to NPT elbows that would hold a larger hard line, but didn't turn up anything yet.  It seems the hard line size (OD) is always matched to the NPT size on the elbow fittings I find.


----------



## Highbeam (May 12, 2017)

Ashful said:


> Yes, it is.  But I checked the size of the line Speeco uses on the 28 and 35 ton splitters, both of which ship with a 16 GPM pump, and all three use the same exactly line there.
> 
> When I upgraded my pump, before swapping motors, I did notice the old motor labored most when on the up-stroke.  I didn't experiment to see if the cause was that line or the valve, but it is when that line would be at lower pressure and it's restrictive behavior most noticeable.
> 
> I did a quick search for SAE, AN, and other flare to NPT elbows that would hold a larger hard line, but didn't turn up anything yet.  It seems the hard line size (OD) is always matched to the NPT size on the elbow fittings I find.



On the other forums people actually have replaced that hard line, and the elbow reducers with full sized elbows and hydraulic hose. It doesn't need to be metal.

I didn't read that you already put on a 16 gpm pump. Did you do that with the OEM engine? Bolted right up? Did it improve cycle time? I too split excessively large rounds but not oak!


----------



## Ashful (May 12, 2017)

Yep, that 16 GPM pump was the whole point of this upgrade, as I was aiming for faster cycle times.  Essentially, the stock 11 GPM is spec'd at an optimistic 12 GPM, running slightly faster than spec'd RPM for that pump.  Playing off that number, 16 GPM should give 8.5 seconds, and 22 GPM 6.0 seconds.  Unfortunately, the 22 GPM pump would require port sizes you'll never find on a standard 4" cylinder (you could have one custom built, at double cost), so I settled for 16 GPM.  All line sizes on the Huskee 22 ton splitter agree with the requirements of a 16 GPM pump, excepting the suction line, which I upgraded to 1".  I also upgraded the suction line tank fitting to a thin wall steel 1" hose to 3/4" NPT large bore fitting.

I did try running this once on the OEM engine, just for kicks, while I was awaiting delivery of my larger engine.  It was slow, and the engine labored against the larger pump, particularly on the up-stroke.  However, yes, the pump I chose bolted directly up to the OEM engine, using the OEM love joy coupling.  With the new engine, I just had to buy a new 1" love joy half coupling.


----------



## Ashful (May 12, 2017)

Please PM me a link to the cylinder return line upgrade, Highbeam.  They must have a swivel fitting on one end, as you'd not get it to thread together on an all-NPT system.  That's where hard line has an advantage.


----------



## Highbeam (May 12, 2017)

Ashful said:


> Please PM me a link to the cylinder return line upgrade, Highbeam.  They must have a swivel fitting on one end, as you'd not get it to thread together on an all-NPT system.  That's where hard line has an advantage.



I looked for hours but just couldn't find it again. Supposedly, gave gains even with the 11 gpm pump. I don't know why speeco came out of the valve with full size threads and put that reducer elbow on, then little metal line, then increaser elbow to thread into the ram.

There must be a swivel on the other pressure line too. No big deal.


----------



## Ashful (May 13, 2017)

On mine, the line size is matched to the elbow size.  It's 1/2" NPT on valve and cylinder, and the elbows are 1/2" NPT to 1/2" SAE flare.  Keep in mind, 1/2" hard line is 1/2" OD.  That isn't great for what we want, but it's hard to find an NPT to SAE elbow that's anything other than matched size (eg. 1/2" to 1/2").


----------



## Highbeam (May 15, 2017)

Ashful said:


> On mine, the line size is matched to the elbow size.  It's 1/2" NPT on valve and cylinder, and the elbows are 1/2" NPT to 1/2" SAE flare.  Keep in mind, 1/2" hard line is 1/2" OD.  That isn't great for what we want, but it's hard to find an NPT to SAE elbow that's anything other than matched size (eg. 1/2" to 1/2").



That's why we would toss out the silly small metal pipe and stay at npt 1/2" size throughout. Why is there even a metal pipe? ID is certainly less than anything else in the system. Saving grace is that the 35 ton with higher gpm pumps also use this metal line so maybe it's not that big a problem.

I'm getting anxious to split some wood.


----------



## Ashful (May 15, 2017)

While I don't disagree with your general sentiment, remember that even a 1/2" hydraulic line with NPT fittings is going to have a bore smaller than the JIC 0.406" bore of that tube, at the interface between the fitting and the hose.  If you want to guarantee a 1/2" bore, you're into something larger than 1/2".

Put otherwise, the hose coming directly off your pump has a fitting whose bore may only be 0.375 where it inserts into the hose, so this is not the only restriction in the system.


----------



## Ashful (May 15, 2017)

Okay, Highbeam.  You've bugged me enough that I went out and found some 1/2" NPTM to JIC 10 fittings.  Just need to order nuts and line, and I'll be up-sized.


----------



## Highbeam (May 15, 2017)

Ashful said:


> Okay, Highbeam.  You've bugged me enough that I went out and found some 1/2" NPTM to JIC 10 fittings.  Just need to order nuts and line, and I'll be up-sized.



You just got done convincing me that it was fine as-is!


----------



## Ashful (May 15, 2017)

I'm not sure if it will make a difference or not, but it can't hurt!


----------



## Highbeam (May 16, 2017)

Ashful said:


> I'm not sure if it will make a difference or not, but it can't hurt!



So what exactly is your plan? You have a 1/2" metal pipe that might have a 0.406", to be replaced with a -10(5/8") pipe that appears to be somewhere around 0.500" ID?

What is the plan for the existing elbows? Remove and replace with the 1/2" NPT x jic 10?


----------



## Ashful (May 16, 2017)

Yep, that's exactly it.  I found Surplus Center had 1/2" NPT X 10 JIC elbows, and ordered them last night.  Next time I need something from McMaster-Carr, I'll add some 5/8" steel tube and a pair of #10 JIC nuts to the order.  No rush, I won't even have the throttle parts until early next week.

_edit:  I might have to rethink McMaster.  Their #10 tubing is all 2000 psi or less._


----------



## Ashful (May 24, 2017)

Hey, Highbeam (and anyone else still listening).  I got the JIC-10 x 3/4" NPT elbows for the cylinder ports the other day, and had a chance to measure them tonight.  Their bore at the JIC-10 end is 0.49", so I can only imagine how small the original JIC-8's must be.

Steel 5/8" hydraulic tubing and nuts on order.  Forgot to check that I have a working bender for 5/8" OD, and that my flaring tools have that diameter, but I think I should be good.  Going to replicate the original jogged pipe scheme, albeit with less jog, in 5/8" tube.


----------



## maple1 (May 25, 2017)

Would it have been easier to get a piece of hydro hose made up?


----------



## Ashful (May 25, 2017)

maple1 said:


> Would it have been easier to get a piece of hydro hose made up?



Probably, but assuming there's some good reason that the OEM used steel, I wanted to stick with that design.  I don't believe it was solely a cost-based decision, as both options cost about the same in low quantity, after figuring in a little labor to bend and flare the steel.


----------



## maple1 (May 25, 2017)

Hmm, I wonder what that reason is? Most other splitter makers just use hoses. I think?


----------



## VirginiaIron (May 25, 2017)

Steel definitely appears more industrial so maybe it's just for appearances.

I bet that length weighs less than a piece of hose- saves money on shipping.


----------



## VirginiaIron (May 25, 2017)

Here are good answers with pros and cons to using each

http://www.hoseandfittingsetc.com/our-blog/hose-v.-tube-assembly-in-hydraulic-systems


----------



## Ashful (May 25, 2017)

VirginiaIron said:


> Here are good answers with pros and cons to using each
> 
> http://www.hoseandfittingsetc.com/our-blog/hose-v.-tube-assembly-in-hydraulic-systems



So, it appears this application does not play toward any of the advantages of hose, while favoring a few of the advantages of tube.


----------



## VirginiaIron (May 25, 2017)

Judging by your system photos I think the only real advantage to the tube would be heat dissipation of the oil. I know the valve is rigidly mounted to the cylinder but I think that design is an Achilles heal since the operator is always operating the valve. Isn't the tubing more inconvenient since you cant use it until you get the pipe?


----------



## Ashful (May 25, 2017)

VirginiaIron said:


> Isn't the tubing more inconvenient since you cant use it until you get the pipe?


What do you mean?  I'll have all the parts tomorrow, except the throttle plate for the engine, which has been on backorder thru Briggs for several weeks, now.


----------



## Ashful (Sep 2, 2017)

Okay, final tally, for anyone who wants to repeat.  I make no warranty about the safety or suitability of this, nor am I recommending anyone do it, this is just an accounting of what I did.

Engine was upgraded from original 190cc Briggs 675e to a 344cc Briggs Intek 21R707-0079-F1.  This engine is total overkill, but it's the only vertical shaft engine over 275cc that I found with on-board fuel tank and electric start, which would fit on this splitter.  Only required mod's were drilling the new bolt pattern and swapping the lovejoy coupling for the new shaft diameter.  Shaft length was the same as the OEM motor, so it mated right up to the stock pump mount.

Pump was upgraded from 11 GPM to 16 GPM... after all, that was  the whole point of this exercise.

Line from valve to top of cylinder was upgraded from 1/2" OD hard line to 5/8" hydraulic hose with SAE-10 fittings.  Part of this was updating the 1/2" NPT x SAE-8 elbows to SAE-10.  Return line and fitting also upgraded, as already outlined above, in detail. 

Finally, electric start was added.  I found the larger pump created enough load on that big motor that it was pretty hard to pull over in warm weather, and I figured it would be just about impossible to start in cold weather.  I spent a while thinking about how to add a starter battery (group U1) to the splitter, and finally realized I really don't need a battery.  Instead, I'll start it off the tractor battery, since I always have the tractor with me when splitting.  I made up a cord with a forklift style battery plug, to connect the splitter to the tractor.  One advantage is that I had to add a key switch, which gives some level of safety, since the splitter sits outside.

I posted photos of pump and motor above, so these pictures just show the solenoid, key switch, and wiring for electric start.  I need to order some grommets, so I can clean up the wiring a bit, but it's working as is.

Cord and tractor will be used for the first cold start.  After that, warm re-starts are easy enough with the rip cord.


----------



## kennyp2339 (Sep 2, 2017)

So what's the new cycle time?


----------



## Ashful (Sep 2, 2017)

kennyp2339 said:


> So what's the new cycle time?



Well, that depends on how it's measured.  It's 45% faster than it was, so if you believe the originally listed cycle time...

My goal started at 100% faster (I.e. half cycle time), but the port size on the cylinder prevented that, and I never found a 4" cylinder with 3/4" NPT (or SAE-10) ports.  So, 16 GPM / 11 GPM = 145%.  

I tried measuring the OEM cycle time before mods, and never got the OEM number, so I gave up on trying to measure cycle time.  Best I can tell, it's close to 8 seconds for the full 48" of travel.


----------



## VirginiaIron (Sep 3, 2017)

Ashful said:


> Well, that depends on how it's measured.  It's 45% faster than it was, so if you believe the originally listed cycle time...
> 
> My goal started at 100% faster (I.e. half cycle time), but the port size on the cylinder prevented that, and I never found a 4" cylinder with 3/4" NPT (or SAE-10) ports.  So, 16 GPM / 11 GPM = 145%.
> 
> I tried measuring the OEM cycle time before mods, and never got the OEM number, so I gave up on trying to measure cycle time.  Best I can tell, it's close to 8 seconds for the full 48" of travel.




Do you have a video of that BEAST devouring you rounds?


----------



## Ashful (Sep 3, 2017)

Nope!  My hands are so busy wrangling rounds, keeping up with this splitter, how would I hold the camera?  [emoji14]


----------



## jetsam (Sep 3, 2017)

VirginiaIron said:


> Do you have a video of that BEAST devouring you rounds?



You got a new profile picture!

That is a serious tree. I think I would skip the splitter and the chainsaw and go straight to the dynamite for that puppy....


----------



## jetsam (Sep 3, 2017)

Ashful said:


> Nope!  My hands are so busy wrangling rounds, keeping up with this splitter, how would I hold the camera?  [emoji14]



So you're typing with your nose?  That sounds interesting. Send us a video!


----------



## VirginiaIron (Sep 4, 2017)

jetsam said:


> So you're typing with your nose?  That sounds interesting. Send us a video!



Send us a video..., Send us a video..!


----------



## Ashful (Sep 4, 2017)

Can we even upload videos to hearth?   I'm not about to sign up for a YouTube account for you!

The video wouldn't be very exciting.  Just like any other Huskee/Speeco 22-ton splitter, but faster.  It went from "painfully slow" to just "regular slow".


----------



## WoodyIsGoody (Sep 4, 2017)

Ashful said:


> The video wouldn't be very exciting.  Just like any other Huskee/Speeco 22-ton splitter, but faster.  It went from "painfully slow" to just "regular slow".



Wait a minute here....

First we are led to believe your hands are flying so fast just to keep up with the modded super fast splitter that you can't even take a video, now we are told it's only gone from painfully slow to "regular slow". 

What's that saying? A video or it didn't happen?


----------



## Ashful (Sep 4, 2017)

I doubt I'll get to making a video.  Sorry to disappoint.


----------



## VirginiaIron (Sep 4, 2017)

Ashful said:


> Can we even upload videos to hearth?   I'm not about to sign up for a YouTube account for you!
> 
> The video wouldn't be very exciting.  Just like any other Huskee/Speeco 22-ton splitter, but faster.  It went from "painfully slow" to just "regular slow".


I don't think we can, but a Vimeo account was quick and painless for me- then imbed the link in your post.
I cannot begin to number the amount of log splitter videos I have watched (& still watch) for technical ideas in methodology and approach or equipment design. [EDIT- This is how I decided I did not want to split very large rounds elevated from the ground.] Some might find it boring but I did not. Anyway, I am glad your project is finished, good luck and maybe someone here can benefit from your path.


----------



## VirginiaIron (Sep 4, 2017)

jetsam said:


> You got a new profile picture!
> 
> That is a serious tree. I think I would skip the splitter and the chainsaw and go straight to the dynamite for that puppy....


Lol, I just realized you were talking to me. You talkin' to me..? I know, it is a huge tree. I was so impressed with the size of that beast I attempted to insert my splitter image but failed.


----------



## VirginiaIron (Sep 4, 2017)

Ashful said:


> I doubt I'll get to making a video.  Sorry to disappoint.


No disappointments, life is light and easy. I was, however, looking forward to seeing your project in action. I'll go go back to the computer after the kids are asleep. 
Slow and steady saves our fingers and your back- it always finishes first.


----------



## VirginiaIron (Sep 10, 2017)

This is somewhat of the vision I had when you were in R&D, but handling larger/longer rounds.


----------



## Jazzberry (Sep 11, 2017)

I like the ding it makes when it bottoms out on the self sharpening wedge.


----------



## Ashful (Sep 11, 2017)

VirginiaIron said:


> This is somewhat of the vision I had when you were in R&D, but handling larger/longer rounds.




Nowhere near that fast!  Mine does about 4 seconds for 24" travel.


----------



## VirginiaIron (Oct 8, 2017)

This guy has about a 6 second cycle time with his original cylinder. He is using a Duramax 16 hp engine and a Haldex 25 gpm pump. He replaced the older cylinder due to leaks but still has a 10.5 cycle. Very impressive but the galvanized fittings concern me.





He needs a log lift....!

He must be in the habit of cranking up the bypass


----------



## VirginiaIron (Feb 1, 2018)

Here I is a pretty fast verticle splitter



As a general observation I would put my hand, foot, or knee in the vicinity of the round. Also, after the repeated failed attempts, I would be looking at my gage pressure to determine if it is my unit or some really extra tough stuff.


----------



## maple1 (Feb 1, 2018)

VirginiaIron said:


> Here I is a pretty fast verticle splitter
> 
> 
> 
> As a general observation I would put my hand, foot, or knee in the vicinity of the round. Also, after the repeated failed attempts, I would be looking at my gage pressure to determine if it is my unit or some really extra tough stuff.




He could help himself out a lot by simply laying down a round something or other (4" stick a few feet long) crosswise a foot or so in front of the splitter foot. When he tips the round up it will lean up and over right in against the beam, and also it is easier to spin the round around on, than the ground.


----------



## Jags (Feb 1, 2018)

It has speed, I will give him that, but it sounds like he has too large of a pump for the engine.  Even during the retract the engine is pulling down the RPM.

I don’t know what to think about the splitting methods being used. Not for me...and I deal with big rounds pretty consistently.


----------



## VirginiaIron (Feb 1, 2018)

maple1 said:


> He could help himself out a lot by simply laying down a round something or other (4" stick a few feet long) crosswise a foot or so in front of the splitter foot. When he tips the round up it will lean up and over right in against the beam, and also it is easier to spin the round around on, than the ground.



I saw this on another video and thought how simple that was.



Jags said:


> It has speed, I will give him that, but it sounds like he has too large of a pump for the engine.  Even during the retract the engine is pulling down the RPM.
> 
> I don’t know what to think about the splitting methods being used. Not for me...and I deal with big rounds pretty consistently.


Me either. He needs a stripper. I watched one group roll the round down hill onto a ramp..... Log lift, log lift...!


----------



## Ashful (Feb 2, 2018)

Mine is at least as fast as that, but being on a commercial platform, things like better valve placement and a stripper have already been engineered into it for me.

Yes, that motor is too small for his pump.  I have the opposite problem, my motor is about 30% larger (and louder) than it needs to be, but it's all I could find that fit on the chassis without major mod's.


----------



## triptester (Feb 2, 2018)

That splitter may have a faster cycle but everything else looked like a disaster . Being bent over, on my knees, and struggling to move the rounds on the ground would just about kill me.


----------



## Ashful (Feb 2, 2018)

triptester said:


> That splitter may have a faster cycle but everything else looked like a disaster . Being bent over, on my knees, and struggling to move the rounds on the ground would just about kill me.


To each their own.  Some of the older members on this forum have claimed they will ONLY split vertical, as their backs can't handle working it horizontal.  Those guys sit on a stump while splitting, and have developed ways of moving the rounds with exerting less effort.


----------



## triptester (Feb 2, 2018)

I think I'm one of those old guys pushing 73. I split vertical but at waist height with a log lift.


----------



## VirginiaIron (Feb 3, 2018)

triptester said:


> I think I'm one of those old guys pushing 73. I split vertical but at waist height with a log lift.
> View attachment 222290



It looks real sturdy. I like the design and the table space surrounding it. A smooth table for easy movement of the rounds.


----------



## Ashful (Feb 3, 2018)

triptester said:


> I think I'm one of those old guys pushing 73. I split vertical but at waist height with a log lift.
> View attachment 222290



You are my hero, triptester.  I hope I’m still energetic enough to be doing this thru my 70’s.

If I recall, from a post last year, you build these rigs yourself?  I remember seeing three of them, all similar, but each a little different.


----------



## Jags (Feb 3, 2018)

Triptester - if I were to build another splitter I think it would be of that basic design.  I like the ergonomics.


----------



## triptester (Feb 3, 2018)

The first one I built was for a older relative who had limited mobility. His sons would harvest the wood and dump it near the splitter where he could sit and split.


----------

