My unexpected logsplitter

[tatra805]

Here is mine,

It came up for sale for 300$, no way i could resist that pricetag so i dumped my building plans. The guy is metalworker/welder as profession and had different types of home-build tractors and implements standing in his garden which all were kind of over-build.

What is nice about his construction is the use of 2 narrow I beams instead of 1 normal beam. This reinforces the whole thing and is more torsion resistant. And another thing is that you easily can make a slip-in adjustable wedge, which is a problem with conventional I beam constructions.

The cylinder is a 4.5"/1.5", 33"stroke. Tractor hydraulics running at 3000psi relief that gives 21.6 tons of push. Cycle time is slow at 15 seconds with the limited tractor hydraulics but.. sufficient for a home-owner. I do not really plan on having any valves installed on the splitter itself. I can position the tractor in such a way that the controls are at the right place to be operated.

Reality test using my knotty remainders. Oak, locust, ash and wallnut pieces ranging from 3ft straight to 20"round and even some small rootballs. All went through with the wallnut being the hardest. (all were knotty in some degree) I monitored the pressure gauge and 90% of the splitting happens below 150 bar (2100psi) .And in each case it went above 150 bar it meant blocking, not splitting (yep 21ton stalled ).

A trick is to keep the block under pressure and whack it with a splitting maul. (lengthwise) Old trick i saw years ago and it still works. Now with 21 tons pressing you can see the beam bending a bit, but everything holds up. Looks as he knew his specs.

With 50 bar left I guessed that a 4 way wedge is an option for my splitting needs. So out came the welder and short time later the 4 way was working.

Just a couple of thoughts and tips:

- vertical knive at 80 degrees to avoid the wood coming up when splitting.
- actual wedge starts 1 inch behind cutting edge and is positioned at 110 degrees to have the splitting forces starting at 1 side of the wood.
- Horizontal knives start at point that the vertical wedge has broken the vertical split. You need to watch your vertical knive and wedge action before you know where this point is. If you do this correctly you create a sequence of actions instead of a possible too big full impact of both vertical and horizontal knives and wedges. (cut vert.--> wedge vert. --> cut hor.--> wedge hor.---> push through) That should allow not needing much more power as when only using a vertical knive.

Tried the 4 way on a couple of pieces and it works great. Have some cubic meters of wood to split tomorrow, i'll keep you updated.

Not sure yet if i'll make it a 3pt mount or find an axle and make it towable. I see the benefit in the 3pt that the height is adjustable, but this thing is 7 ft long and heavy to sway behind a small tractor.
A table would be nice also.

So, give me your thoughts, I've been reading a bunch of splitter threads but guess each one has its specifics.

Guess the question is now what you all would add or change and why. I have no plans on commercial use, just the idea to go around the village to help out the elderly here. Although they might consider it normal it is a painfull sight to me to see them swing their maul for 2 weeks every year.

 

[Steve NW WI]

I'd make it a trailer mount. It is more stuff to maintain, but you will have a lot of wieght a long ways out for that small tractor. I'm not sure how the 3pts on small tractors are rated, but on bigger farm tractors, it is how much it will lift 24" behind the lift arms. Your setup would have a center close to 36" behind them, making it "feel" heavier than it is.

Congratulations on the new splitter, and I admire your plans to help out the local elderly.

I've always wondered about making a wedge with a v shaped cutting edge to reduce the tonnage needed on a small machine. It would have to help, as you are shearing the wood more than breaking it. On our large metal stamping tools, this is a common way of reducing the tonnage needed to pierce holes in steel.

 

[Beefie]

splitter

I agree with Steve. Make it into a tow able unit. You can then build it to a comfortable working height. And make a table for splitting your rounds down. You might want to reconsider using your tractor hydraulics and turn it in to a separate unit with its own power suppl and hydralic reservoir. That way the tractor is not tyed up for splitter duty and you could use the bucket for moving firewood.

Just my 2 cents worth

Beefie

 

[flewism]

That looks like it will work, I'm impressed with that small tractor's hydraulics.
What is it? My tractor's hydraulics can only push 6.2 U.S. gpm, 2200psi or about 145 bar. A 33" stroke, 4.5" bore cylinder, I'd be looking at a 40 plus second cycle time.

Until you figure out which way you go 3pt or trailer. I'm thinking since it looks like you are using the curl circuit on your loader. Can you clamp, bolt it to the front of that bucket. Using the bucket as a table and the loader lift arms to set working height and help load large rounds. Better yet is a quick change bucket, drop the bucket and pick up the splitter with a built in table and all.

My 3pt is rated to pickup 1600lb, 24" behind the rear links. His appears, by the picture to be about the same physical size.

Hey $300 and we have ourselves a hydraulic splitter with all kinds of possibilities, good job.

 

[tatra805]

Flewism,

Its a Iseki TL1900 must be 15 year old or so. On the curl of the bucket wont work, 7ft wide is a bit too much to be handy.

We just finished splitting 10 cubics in exactly 4 hours with 2 man and 1 break included.

That makes 2.5m3 per hour. Now lets calculate a bit> what is faster a slow meter-splitter or a fast short stroke splitter

With my splitter:
15sec cycle means 4 meter pieces /min x 60 = 240 splits per hour

Short stroke:
1 split equals 3 1ft rounds of wood after cutting

3x 240 = 720 rounds

cycle time say 6 seconds:

720 x 6 = 4320 sec or 72 minutes


Not a big difference but we had a coffee on the way


We just finished cutting the split wood and ended up with 8 hours effective work. Thats 1.25 m3 per hour processed, not bad i would say (or at least that how it feels)

Splitter performed great. first attemmpt on a boring video of a slow splitter.





here you can see the difference in split action, first vertical and a fraction later horizontal

On these 10 cubics we had 10 or so pieces blocking. But as said a slam with the maul, or just rotating the piece 90 degrees solved all problems. This is not the hardest species to split, i know, but it is the most common firewood in our region. SO, passed and approved i would say.

 

[Haywire Haywood]

How about 3-point, but instead of it sticking straight out the back, mount it horizontally across the back of the tractor. Getting the mass closer to the tractor would mean less felt weight.

I like controls on the splitter too, but that is just me.

Ian

Edit... like this one. If you built legs on it, the tractor would only be lifting it in transport... when splitting, lower it onto the legs.

 

[flewism]

So it appears your statement is you are producing 240 finished pieces of firewood an hour with 2 men to compute the 15 second cycle time per piece, or 4 pieces per minute.
Using that logic one could build a splitter with a 1 second cycle time, generating 8 pieces in 8 seconds, or even improve on that.

Now I would be keeping an eye out for a PTO pump, tank and valve also a filter, 3pt or trailer for the beam and cylinder,
The 22hp on that diesel will give you 17 at the PTO all day. This would at least double you output to 480 pieces per hour.

Once again good job on your splitter.

 

[coog]

How about 3-point, but instead of it sticking straight out the back, mount it horizontally across the back of the tractor. Getting the mass closer to the tractor would mean less felt weight.

I like controls on the splitter too, but that is just me.

Ian

Edit... like this one. If you built legs on it, the tractor would only be lifting it in transport... when splitting, lower it onto the legs.

This is close to what I have.I found it on craig's, and wkpoor from this board has on very much like it. With this set-up you can add a trailer hitch to the splitter and carry all you need to and from the woods.The pto pump will give much faster cycle times than the tractor hydraulics.

 

[Steve NW WI]

For those who may be math challenged on here, 10 cubic meters works out to 353 cubic feet, or right at 2 3/4 full cords. That's not too shabby for a four hour shift.

Tatra is I beleive somewhere in Europe, which explains both the long splits (I learned on here that it is fairly common to cut firewood over there in 1 meter (39 inches), and then cut the splits down to fit the stove at a later time.), and the reluctance to mount the splitter sideways on the tractor. Many of the old roadways are narrower than the driveways we have here. Farm machinery is very strictly limited on width in most of western Europe, and a lot of equipment built for over there folds very narrow for transport.

Looks like it will serve you well Tatra. Make sure you get lots of pictures as you improve and modify it!

If I explained any of this incorrectly, please say so.

 

[HARRY BARKER]

For those who may be math challenged on here, 10 cubic meters works out to 353 cubic feet, or right at 2 3/4 full cords. That's not too shabby for a four hour shift.

Tatra is I beleive somewhere in Europe, which explains both the long splits (I learned on here that it is fairly common to cut firewood over there in 1 meter (39 inches), and then cut the splits down to fit the stove at a later time.), and the reluctance to mount the splitter sideways on the tractor. Many of the old roadways are narrower than the driveways we have here. Farm machinery is very strictly limited on width in most of western Europe, and a lot of equipment built for over there folds very narrow for transport.

Looks like it will serve you well Tatra. Make sure you get lots of pictures as you improve and modify it!

If I explained any of this incorrectly, please say so.

not bad at all....but cutting it to size after has me puzzled....please explain.

 

[flewism]

Actually I was initially impressed with tata statement that he had a 15 second cycle time running a 33" 4.5" dia. cylinder off tractor hydraulics and was curious how.
That was until he explained the unique way he was determining cycle time. Total number of pieces generated within a given time, four pieces in 60 seconds or 15 a second cycle time on each piece.
My 22 ton huskee has a 7 second cycle time because it is capable of generating 2 pieces in 14 seconds??? Nope it has a 14 second cycle time extending and retracting the cylinder once.

I also was curious on why the wood was bucked so long.

 

[turnkey4099]

YOu mentioned that you can see the beam "bending". That can be cured quickly by welding another I-beam or even square tubing under it. Depth is more important than strength in that application. Our shop turned out 7 splitters based on 4" square tubing. Version one had too much flex. A 2x2 tube added under it cured that problem.

Harry K

 

[tatra805]

Thanks for all the reactions. Now to answer your questions,..

Steve,

You are absolutely right with your statements about width restrictions etc The reason for the wood being cut in 1m lengths is quite logic. We are using the metric system. That means that not only a cubic meter is a nice unit to calculate with but everything overhere is constructed around "The Meter"
Forrest-able trucks, tractor trailers etc all have a +- 2 meter width So it is actually very convenient to load 2 stacks of 1m logs next to each other.

2 meter logs are too heavy to manhandle (yes a lot of manipulation is still done by hand) and a general strategy is to stack wood along a forest road on both sides of the road. That means 2 people can load simultaniously.... time profit!

Harry,

This is an ongoing discussion about what is faster. You have to go from the fact that wood is delivered in 1m pieces. rarely somebody actually gets trees delivered (90% of the firewood are branches, although a lot of people think that a 20" round must be from a big tree)

So you want to minimize handling time, logically the less pieces you have to move the faster you are working.

Secondly, a splitter is the slowest part in the chain. So the less strokes it has to make the faster you are working again.

Generally when you talk to people you find the 2 opinions devided as follows; forrestworkers claim the 1m splitting than cutting to be the most effective while home-warriors are convinced about the opposite.

It might have something to do with the fact that a forrest worker has double muscle weight of a homeowner so he handles the 1m logs better, and of course that these guys have the machinery to power big splitters. Another point is, try to collect 1ft rounds in a forest, so we are back to the handling efficiency.

Cutting time is the same for both, we cut the stacks itself. So not piece by piece on a saw support or something.


Flewism,

I have to correct my or your statements a bit. It is as you indicate theoretical stupid to just measure a cycle time. just being there with 2 people can double your cappacity, certainly when you dont have a splitter valve but a manual one as in my case (so no automation)

Therefore i calculated it as i did, surprisingly the calculated pieces were not that far off from 2 m3 stacked meter wood i still have laying (yes i went out to count them)

I hope we both agree that a 3ft piece contains 3 1ft pieces, so you would need 3 cycles to split the same as what 1 cycle does on my splitter (beware this is not a mine is best statement!) Actually I think for all of us the question is processing time, not cycle time. Can you give me a clue how long it takes you to split a certain volume? I am asking as i really expected the time difference to be much bigger than what i calculated.




Now on converting the splitter to a tow behind....

I noticed it being much less of a problem to move these logs at ground level and not having to stretch your back by lifting the logs higher than 1ft. I know my back and am sure i would not manage the up-down movements for that long time. So i am really tinking to look into the 3pt mount.

Haywire's proposal looks good but is not possible for me, just imagine a 4ft wide tractor with a 7ft something beam mounted on the back. Not an agile solution. (for a short stroke splitter it is nevertheless a elegant solution)

If i fab someting i'll post some pictures. All ideas welcome in the mean time!

 

[wkpoor]

Twice I have sent these pics to Speeco and never ever heard back from them at all. I like their beam assembly with valve but their approach to mounting it on the tractor IMO was a joke and lacked vesitility. The legs are not needed. Any tractor capable of running this is capable of handing it on its own. Why would you drag those legs around especially in the woods? Just something to get torn off or bent up. This has been in operation for 5 yrs and has worked flawlessly. It is 6 sec cycle time, can work at any height comfortable to the operator,can pull a trailer or wagon behind and still goes vertical. The tank is 21gal to keep the fluid cool in the summer. I lower fluid volume to about 7 gal in winter ops. I run tractor on "E" PTO for fuel savings and it really doesn't know there is a splitter attached to it.

 

[HARRY BARKER]

Cutting time is the same for both, we cut the stacks itself. So not piece by piece on a saw support or something.
more info please,thanks

 

[WetBehindtheEar]

That tractor looks too clean!!!

You obviously don't hook it up to a manure spreader!

Nice fab work, though.

 

[wkpoor]

That tractor looks too clean!!!

You obviously don't hook it up to a manure spreader!

Its called a pressure washer. Does wonders for dirty things. No I don't pull a manure spreader but it has seen its share of mud. Funny how I wash my tractor but not my car. I also store all my tractors in the garage and the cars/trucks sit out.

 

[Steve NW WI]

WKpoor - a speeco on a 3pt looks nice, especially with your hitch frame.

Speeco's website is pretty lacking, at least on the 3pt model. Is the PTO pump included, or does it normally plumb into tractor hydraulics? What size/type pump does it come with if PTO?

If you don't mind what did the splitter cost you?

I'd better stop for the night, I'm having crazy thoughts of a front mounted speeco on the M, with the pump on the belt pulley drive, and turning my saw rig into a hydraulic drive off the same pump, and quick attach system to change between the two...

:arg::hmm3grin2orange:

 

[wkpoor]

Speeco's website is pretty lacking, at least on the 3pt model. Is the PTO pump included, or does it normally plumb into tractor hydraulics? What size/type pump does it come with if PTO?

If you don't mind what did the splitter cost you?

I'd better stop for the night, I'm having crazy thoughts of a front mounted speeco on the M, with the pump on the belt pulley drive, and turning my saw rig into a hydraulic drive off the same pump, and quick attach system to change between the two...

Lots of questions.......
Pump is not included on the Speeco 3pt models and they intend for you to use tractor hyd.
That is the prince PTO pump. They come in 540 and 1000 pto rpm models from 11gpm-40gpm
My splitter including original Speeco purchase ran me about 1800.00. That was including paying for the fab work on the tank and frame.
I originally built the unit for my H. But my H has a Saginaw 3pt with power top link and live hyd and live power steering and dual remotes and on and on and on and oh yeh.....50hp engine. It ain't your moma's H. Problem is it only runs on expensive racing fuel and the Deere sips deisel or the free sumped jet fuel that I run it on.
hehehehehe......any more questions?

 

[Steve NW WI]

Lots of questions.......
Pump is not included on the Speeco 3pt models and they intend for you to use tractor hyd.
That is the prince PTO pump. They come in 540 and 1000 pto rpm models from 11gpm-40gpm
My splitter including original Speeco purchase ran me about 1800.00. That was including paying for the fab work on the tank and frame.
I originally built the unit for my H. But my H has a Saginaw 3pt with power top link and live hyd and live power steering and dual remotes and on and on and on and oh yeh.....50hp engine. It ain't your moma's H. Problem is it only runs on expensive racing fuel and the Deere sips deisel or the free sumped jet fuel that I run it on.
hehehehehe......any more questions?

Suspected it was run off tractor hyd. I'm sure I could scrounge a tank, and I have a PTO pump out back on an old Hesston center pivot haybine, lots of flow, but unsure of pressure. Fab work seems to be the easy part for me, if I can just get some "quality time" at work to do some cutting and bending.

My M was dyno'd at 52, after rebuilding with a big bore kit about 8 years ago, still on pump gas. The Massey is more economical, but the loader and 3pt lend themselves more to moving the wood, and I can leave the gas motor M out in 0°F weather and not worry about starting it without a plugin nearby.

Now about this free jet fuel...where's a guy find a source for that????????
Seriously, any problems with pumps from running it? During Desert Shield we had about a 90% replacement rate on injection pumps on the NTC400 Cummins engines in my company's trucks, due to the lower lubricating properties of the JP-8 we ran everything on over there.