Kinetic vs hydraulic

[jetsam]

I am hoping that my second modification will take care of the 40-50 inch rounds if/when I get them

You don't always need massive force to split big stuff. I split plenty of 36"+ stuff with a maul- just start taking chunks off the outer perimeter. I honestly prefer the maul for big stuff if it's reasonably straight grained- saves a lot of the lifting and heaving that makes my back sad.

A big branchy crotch will get the splitter, though. I try to find a weak spot and split it in half so it's more maneuverable first, then whack the halves down into stove sized chunks (usually smallish ones, since a lot of that stuff winds up being odd shaped).

 

[VirginiaIron]

You don't always need massive force to split big stuff. I split plenty of 36"+ stuff with a maul- just start taking chunks off the outer perimeter. I honestly prefer the maul for big stuff if it's reasonably straight grained- saves a lot of the lifting and heaving that makes my back sad.

A big branchy crotch will get the splitter, though. I try to find a weak spot and split it in half so it's more maneuverable first, then whack the halves down into stove sized chunks (usually smallish ones, since a lot of that stuff winds up being odd shaped).

My second mod does not have anything to do with massive force- just convenience and ergonomics.

 

[jetsam]

My second mod does not have anything to do with massive force- just convenience and ergonomics.

I should think about that myself. A practical log lifter and log catcher would get me using the splitter lot more than I do, but I'm not sure what that would look like. (I still need the splitter to be easily portable.)

 

[blades]

a small jib Crane type arrangement works well with a set of tongs ( kinda pricy) or choke strap

 

[DodgyNomad]

If I was younger, I'd look more seriously at a kinetic. I can hardly keep up with my hydraulic after an hour or so. I wear out before it does, that's for sure.

 

[DodgyNomad]

The other problem I saw first hand when we used a kinetic years ago was it wouldn't go through the big gnarly stuff. Sometimes you had to go at it a bunch of times, sometimes it just wouldn't go through at all. I wish the ram heads were larger, as well as the wedge on the kinetics, because we had big oak rounds that were fighting us the entire time with the kinetic.

I think they're fine in smaller, finer grained woods, but the one we used was pretty noisy and rattly, and I wasn't that impressed with the build quality. Looked like something that would wear out much faster than the hydraulic speeco I currently have.

 

[saewoody]

The other problem I saw first hand when we used a kinetic years ago was it wouldn't go through the big gnarly stuff. Sometimes you had to go at it a bunch of times, sometimes it just wouldn't go through at all. I wish the ram heads were larger, as well as the wedge on the kinetics, because we had big oak rounds that were fighting us the entire time with the kinetic.

I think they're fine in smaller, finer grained woods, but the one we used was pretty noisy and rattly, and I wasn't that impressed with the build quality. Looked like something that would wear out much faster than the hydraulic speeco I currently have.

Thanks for the thoughts. I'm going to try one out this week, so I will see how it works out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tar12]

You don't always need massive force to split big stuff. I split plenty of 36"+ stuff with a maul- just start taking chunks off the outer perimeter. I honestly prefer the maul for big stuff if it's reasonably straight grained- saves a lot of the lifting and heaving that makes my back sad.

A big branchy crotch will get the splitter, though. I try to find a weak spot and split it in half so it's more maneuverable first, then whack the halves down into stove sized chunks (usually smallish ones, since a lot of that stuff winds up being odd shaped).

Although I have more than enough splitter power...I find myself leaving this big crotchy stuff right where it lays and noodle those bad boys up into 8-10 in squares instead of trying to split them down because as you have discovered you wind up with a mess..just not worth the effort. I put those squares in a separate stack as it takes longer to season them out but oh so worth it!

 

[jetsam]

Although I have more than enough splitter power...I find myself leaving this big crotchy stuff right where it lays and noodle those bad boys up into 8-10 in squares instead of trying to split them down because as you have discovered you wind up with a mess..just not worth the effort. I put those squares in a separate stack as it takes longer to season them about but oh so worth it!

Those crotches are where the BTUs are hiding! I don't noodle them because it's slow to do that many cuts in big oak and maple, but I do bust 'em up and use every bit. I do get some slabs out of the gnarlies, then I split the big irregular pieces down into small irregular pieces. There's always room for some odds and sods at the end of a load.

 

[Ashful]

Those crotches are where the BTUs are hiding! I don't noodle them because it's slow to do that many cuts in big oak and maple...

If that's not an excuse to buy a bigger saw...

 

[Tar12]

Those crotches are where the BTUs are hiding! I don't noodle them because it's slow to do that many cuts in big oak and maple, but I do bust 'em up and use every bit. I do get some slabs out of the gnarlies, then I split the big irregular pieces down into small irregular pieces. There's always room for some odds and sods at the end of a load.

You got that right about the BTUs! They burn and burn! Had a guy call me up wanting to know if i wanted some oak? Well sure...then he proceeded to tell me it was pretty big stuff...told him that wasn't a problem. I get there and meet the man and we walk back to the woods...he forgot to tell me the part about all of the relatives and friends cutting all the gravy...lol...all that was left was monster crotch pieces! He saw the look on my face and said he wouldn't blame me if I didn't want or couldn't handle it...i turned to my son and said go get the truck we have some work to do...we spent 3 solid days in there noodling those suckers! Talking about heavy wood! It was several years before it was ready to burn but it lasted close to 5 years cause I only burned that stuff on the coldest nights...would I do it again? NO! That was serious work!

 

[Tar12]

If that's not an excuse to buy a bigger saw...

It was the excuse I used to justify a new 660..makes noodling a piece of cake!

 

[VirginiaIron]

Here is a nice video with a SPEECO Brand (looks like Dirty Hands) and some stringy wood.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

The guy says he has a bad back and he is using it mostly on vertical, which is best if you do not have a loader or lift. But working in that position all day long, in my opinion, is a killer for me. This is where a lift and table would be nice to have.

Now, I'd love to have this kinetic one

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

with my loader bucket full of wood so I do not have to continually move to the pile and feed it. Although, this size log and larger is just as easy to split with a maul but you constantly have to set up the rounds for splitting. A man, in this country doesn't usually have one pair of shoes, so, should a man have more than one splitter? My mod will basically be two in one, but maybe I'll add a kinetic to the list.

EDIT: If you look closely at the preview image frame, you can see another splitter in the lower right frame. Proof that a man or woman should have more than one splitter.

 

[rowerwet]

Thanks for all the helpful input. It has been helpful. Any thoughts on a 2 way splitter like the Harbor Freight version? I know it's probably not the highest quality, but it has good reviews. It won't be as fast as a kinetic, but there is no time wasted on the return, and it is hydraulic so it should get through most of whatever gets thrown at it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I burn 6 or so cords a year, all split with the predator from harbor freight.
No issues with reliability, and easy to start.
It takes two adults to keep up with the output of this thing. One to split and one setting up the rounds within reach and then stacking the split pile.
If you go for a kinetic, you need three people to keep the flow going, four if they aren't young and fit. I used a super split years ago in college, we could process many cords of wood a day with three people, any less and you are stopping to clear the splits.

 

[Ashful]

I burn 6 or so cords a year, all split with the predator from harbor freight.
No issues with reliability, and easy to start.
It takes two adults to keep up with the output of this thing. One to split and one setting up the rounds within reach and then stacking the split pile.
If you go for a kinetic, you need three people to keep the flow going, four if they aren't young and fit. I used a super split years ago in college, we could process many cords of wood a day with three people, any less and you are stopping to clear the splits.

If you were renting the splitter, and therefore had some vested interest in "keeping up with" it or achieving it's maximum output, you are correct. For those who own a splitter, keeping up with it to get the most out of the splitter is less critical. However, even a one-man operation will always benefit from a faster splitter, and not repeatedly waiting 12 seconds (times a few thousand cycles per day) for a slow hydraulic splitter to cycle thru a single split.

 

[rowerwet]

If you were renting the splitter, and therefore had some vested interest in "keeping up with" it or achieving it's maximum output, you are correct. For those who own a splitter, keeping up with it to get the most out of the splitter is less critical. However, even a one-man operation will always benefit from a faster splitter, and not repeatedly waiting 12 seconds (times a few thousand cycles per day) for a slow hydraulic splitter to cycle thru a single split.

I own the predator, and was a student working off some of my tuition with the SS.
The predator has no return stroke, it is ready to go as soon as soon as I am done repositioning the round.
This makes it so I almost never am waiting for a ram to meet the wood. The trick is to not run full strokes, once the wood cracks apart, run the wedge until the aft edge is two inches into the wood, grab the splits and yank. Toss the split(s), reload or reposition the round to the other side of the ram and reverse the ram.
If your round length is consistent, you can drop your new round between the opposite foot and the wedge, with an inch or so to spare.
Cycle time is nil
the SS has an advantage in straight grained wood, but I think the predator is the best for any wood, unless you are in the firewood business, a SS is overkill, (and I really tried to justify one)

 

[saewoody]

If you were renting the splitter, and therefore had some vested interest in "keeping up with" it or achieving it's maximum output, you are correct. For those who own a splitter, keeping up with it to get the most out of the splitter is less critical. However, even a one-man operation will always benefit from a faster splitter, and not repeatedly waiting 12 seconds (times a few thousand cycles per day) for a slow hydraulic splitter to cycle thru a single split.

This is exactly what I have been thinking when people say you can't keep up with it. Whether or not I can go as fast as the splitter is irrelevant. Once I put the round on the splitter 12 seconds vs 3 seconds is a lifetime. It could quite literally mean I can split the same amount of wood in one quarter the time; or four times the wood in the same amount of time. I'm sure it won't be quite that advantageous, but even if I went twice as fast it would be worth it to me. I enjoy running the splitter, but I also enjoy getting to the other things in my life that need to get done.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[saewoody]

I own the predator, and was a student working off some of my tuition with the SS.
The predator has no return stroke, it is ready to go as soon as soon as I am done repositioning the round.
This makes it so I almost never am waiting for a ram to meet the wood. The trick is to not run full strokes, once the wood cracks apart, run the wedge until the aft edge is two inches into the wood, grab the splits and yank. Toss the split(s), reload or reposition the round to the other side of the ram and reverse the ram.
If your round length is consistent, you can drop your new round between the opposite foot and the wedge, with an inch or so to spare.
Cycle time is nil
the SS has an advantage in straight grained wood, but I think the predator is the best for any wood, unless you are in the firewood business, a SS is overkill, (and I really tried to justify one)

Good points. I have also considered HF Predator splitter because of the the bi-directional splitter. I know it probably wouldn't be as fast as a SS, but the price is right and it would still be faster than a traditional hydraulic. I had the opportunity to try a SS this morning (thanks Mike! By the way, I ended up filling up my trailer near the Simsbury/Bloomfield line). It was pretty impressive. This one happened to be electric; I liked the low noise level. It was much more peaceful than a ~200cc engine humming away right next to you (even wearing earplugs). I came home and split for several hours with the hydraulic and I don't think it compares in any way with the efficiency of the SS.

Of course, if anyone in the CT area has a HF Predator splitter they are willing to let me try, I would be willing to check it out![emoji6]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[thinkxingu]

This is exactly what I have been thinking when people say you can't keep up with it. Whether or not I can go as fast as the splitter is irrelevant. Once I put the round on the splitter 12 seconds vs 3 seconds is a lifetime. It could quite literally mean I can split the same amount of wood in one quarter the time; or four times the wood in the same amount of time. I'm sure it won't be quite that advantageous, but even if I went twice as fast it would be worth it to me. I enjoy running the splitter, but I also enjoy getting to the other things in my life that need to get done.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The math doesn't work because you'd only save that time for the actual split--all the before and after time would remain the same. I'd even hazard a guess that you'd lose some of that time savings with the kinetic because you'd want to be more precise with placement before starting the split whereas with the hydraulic I start it moving as I'm finalizing placement of the round. Finally, the 12 seconds is the absolute slowest vs. 3 being absolute fastest.

Losing overall power/ability while decreasing safety for a minimal time savings (especially with <5 cords) seems like a bad choice.

Sent from my XT1528 using Tapatalk

 

[saewoody]

Valid points. I know it's not perfect math. You are right, it is just split time I was figuring. I was not accounting for placement and all that. Also, don't forget the reason you can adjust your piece while starting movement of the ram is because by nature the ram moves slowly. Thanks for your input.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ashful]

The math doesn't work because you'd only save that time for the actual split--all the before and after time would remain the same. I'd even hazard a guess that you'd lose some of that time savings with the kinetic because you'd want to be more precise with placement before starting the split whereas with the hydraulic I start it moving as I'm finalizing placement of the round. Finally, the 12 seconds is the absolute slowest vs. 3 being absolute fastest.

Losing overall power/ability while decreasing safety for a minimal time savings (especially with <5 cords) seems like a bad choice.

Sent from my XT1528 using Tapatalk

Keep in mind, you're commenting on saewoody's comments toward my comments... and I was on a tangent to this thread discussing a fast hydraulic splitter, not the OP's kinetic splitter. The trouble with doing any math of this sort is that you're taking operations which are measured in seconds, and attempting to extrapolate that to hours of work, when the operation is repeated a few thousand times. The only guarantee in this is that your error of measurement is multiplied by those thousands of operations.

It's better to take real-world examples. I have spent many, many days splitting with my 12-second splitter, and also several days with a 6-second splitter I used to rent one or two weekends each year. I can say for a fact that I got a lot more wood split with the faster splitter, even when all other differences in circumstance were negated.

For me, there's another factor, though. I find waiting on a splitter with a 12 second cycle time very frustrating. I am burning wood because I enjoy it, and that darn slow splitter is taking away from my enjoyment of this pursuit.

 

[jetsam]

For me, there's another factor, though. I find waiting on a splitter with a 12 second cycle time very frustrating. I am burning wood because I enjoy it, and that darn slow splitter is taking away from my enjoyment of this pursuit.

Maybe you should consider a kinetic splitter, or a maul.

 

[Ashful]

Maybe you should consider a kinetic splitter, or a maul.

I did the majority of my splitting with a maul for most of my life. But it really started messing up my shoulders, when I installed two stoves in this house, and started trying to do it on my current scale. I'm just using too much wood per year to be splitting with a maul, as a middle-aged desk jockey.

 

[Jags]

Durn kids - man up, I say. Pay no attention, just putting salve on the joints.....

 

[Jazzberry]

Durn kids - man up, I say. Pay no attention, just putting salve on the joints.....

My grandpa used to say tape a aspirin to it and quit bitchin lol