How many SuperSplit owner do we have on the ArboristSite?
How long have you owned one?
Do you have a hydraulic unit also?
How long have you owned one?
Do you have a hydraulic unit also?
For me it’s speed, simplicity/less parts to break, light weight/easy to move around, better on fuel as smaller engine than a big commercial hydro of similar speed, and no hydro fluid to deal with.I have never ran a kenetic splitter so I ma sure there is something that makes people like them so. Is it just the speed, or not having to mess with oil and hoses.
How can a hydraulic splitter have more parts to break? The only part I've ever had to replace on my hydraulic splitter has been the lovejoy coupling... other than that, a hydraulic should be totally maintenance free for years and years.For me it’s speed, simplicity/less parts to break, light weight/easy to move around, better on fuel as smaller engine than a big commercial hydro of similar speed, and no hydro fluid to deal with.
Just in hydraulic components you have a tank, hoses, pump, cylinder, and control valve at a minimum. Many splitter owners leave their machines outside, so cracked hoses aren’t uncommon, neither are hydraulic leaks. You guys can’t say kinetic splitters are too expensive for how simple and lightweight they are, but also say hydraulics are just as basic and simple. Most Supersplit owners I know personally not on the internet have done almost zero to their machines in 20,30, plus years of ownership other than replace a roller bearing.How can a hydraulic splitter have more parts to break? The only part I've ever had to replace on my hydraulic splitter has been the lovejoy coupling... other than that, a hydraulic should be totally maintenance free for years and years.
LOL, I sure can!!Just in hydraulic components you have a tank, hoses, pump, cylinder, and control valve at a minimum. Many splitter owners leave their machines outside, so cracked hoses aren’t uncommon, neither are hydraulic leaks. You guys can’t say kinetic splitters are too expensive for how simple and lightweight they are, but also say hydraulics are just as basic and simple. Most Supersplit owners I know personally not on the internet have done almost zero to their machines in 20,30, plus years of ownership other than replace a roller bearing.
Well, if you go back and reread what was actually posted, I just asked how a hydraulic could have more parts to break. Then you said "you guys can't say...", so I showed how "us guys" could say... and then backed it up by contrasting comparable hydraulic parts to comparable kinetic parts. I don't think anyone asked why one would prefer a kinetic splitter. You can go back and actually read the posts, I because I did say how I thought a hydraulic could keep up if you'd like, I don't need to rehash it here. You are just wanting to argue cycle times I think... and looking solely at cycle times, there absolutely is no argument that a kinetic is faster... but in the big picture cycle time is a very minor contributor over a day's time with a 1 operator system. I have yet to see anyone prove me wrong, and I'm hoping they will. Because then I'll have justification for spending the money on a kinetic, rather than just wanting one.The title of the thread was how many Supersplit owners. Then someone asked why you prefer a kinetic splitter. Not sure why you chose to try and turn it into a kinetic vs hydraulic thread. If you think a $999 TSC with a 15-18 second cycle time is as fast as a Supersplit, then the splitter isn’t the problem. Whatever floats your boat though brother. The only hydraulics they will keep up to a kinetic cost 2-3 times as much. I’ve used 2 different brand kinetics and at least a half dozen hydraulic splitters from a Husky homeowner model to a Speeco, to a commercial American splitter, to a Timberwolf TW 5 and a TW6. The TW’s kept up, but like I said my friend paid around three times what a Supersplit cost for each one of them. He sold the TW5, and purchased the TW6. This guy is a commercial tree company who sells 500 plus cords a year. Guess what??? He also bought 2 Supersplit J models and splits most of the wood with them. The Timberwolf only gets used to break down big blocks. Hopefully that’s real world enough experience.
I think the part about why people like their kinetic splitter was directed at me.Well, if you go back and reread what was actually posted, I just asked how a hydraulic could have more parts to break. Then you said "you guys can't say...", so I showed how "us guys" could say... and then backed it up by contrasting comparable hydraulic parts to comparable kinetic parts. I don't think anyone asked why one would prefer a kinetic splitter. You can go back and actually read the posts, I because I did say how I thought a hydraulic could keep up if you'd like, I don't need to rehash it here. You are just wanting to argue cycle times I think... and looking solely at cycle times, there absolutely is no argument that a kinetic is faster... but in the big picture cycle time is a very minor contributor over a day's time with a 1 operator system. I have yet to see anyone prove me wrong, and I'm hoping they will. Because then I'll have justification for spending the money on a kinetic, rather than just wanting one.
Sorry if I popped anyone's balloons, just wanted to bring some parity to the "You guys can't say..." statement, because "us guys" certainly can say. At the end of the day, we all still get the pile of wood split. Enjoy what you have, be thankful that you have it, whether it is hydraulic or kinetic. That's what matters.![]()
With that said. I am strickley a hydraulic splitter guy that has never ran a kinetic splitter. Hydraulic works for me as a homeowner, not a reseller of firewood. My personal thoughts about the which is better is based on a bias one sided experience of using wood splitters. I asked the question because I wanted to know the answer. I prefer hydraulics because that is what I know. If speed is the only reason to own a kinetic splitter, that is simply a ignorant answer. No doubt about it, a hydraulic splitter can be built that will be a ton faster than a kinetic. I attribute the cost of a fast hydraulic versus a kinetic would be a big deciding factor. I'll give the nod to the kinetic for cost. Weight, well a big fast hydraulic is certainly going to out weigh the kinetic, I'll concede that also. When you come back to speed, a hydraulic will bust thru those big knotty rounds in one pass while a kinetic might take 2 or 3 strokes to get the job done, speed might be thrown out the door if all you have to split are big knotty crotch rounds. A hydraulic will also split 4-5-6 pieces at a pass which could also effect actual production per hr in the favor of the hydraulic machine. Maintence of either type of machine will play a big part on keeping the machine operating. As said, proper maintenace will keep a hydraulic machine running a long, long time. I suspect The same can be said for kinetic machines. Since I have never operated a kinetic, I dont know what wears out or the cost of replacement parts so I am not going to say which might be cheapest. Anyways, instead of slamming a kinetic machine, especially if you dont own one, Maybe a person should listen to the Kinetic owners instead of preaching the merits of owning hydraulics. I asked my question of owners of kinetic machines, I already know what I need to know about a hydraulic machine.I have never ran a kenetic splitter so I ma sure there is something that makes people like them so. Is it just the speed, or not having to mess with oil and hoses.
Enter your email address to join: