New kinetic splitter launched by Split Second Log Splitter

[KiwiBro]

I like some of the features of the Agri-fab, road towable from the factory is worth a little more over the SS to me.

That and an adjustable height are good features if they are rock solid. Likewise for the log lift if it's solid.

If it had the proven reliability of a SS (it doesn't and simply can't because it's new and not proven from years of real-world use), and the productivity of a SS (it doesn't, being so choked by the desire to be avoiding ambulance chasers) then it might be worth a bit more than the SS. But right now, unless considerably cheaper, I really can't see anything particularly compelling about the offering.

Perhaps they, like DR, have the reach to prospects well outside SS's scope, or simply want to respond to lateral selling opportunities they already create within Ag-Fab's existing lines or wanted to leverage this foray into a reasonably new market for them to expose more people to their other lines?

I dunno, but as a splitter being pitched to advanced wood hacks, in its current form the pitch is unlikely to be successful targeting such prospects.

The other thing is, even if Paul is forced to include a safety feature that if tinkered with will void the warranty, people will still buy his and circumvent the safety feature because we all know how few things go wrong with his splitter. I've replaced a few belts that are just wear items anyway. That's all, in a few thousand m3 of split wood. I don't get any warranty on the other side of the planet, especially when I had to almost smuggle it out of USA because he wouldn't sell to NZ. Don't need a warranty, it's just one of those bits of kit that will probably last a lifetime. Precious few things these days are designed and engineered to last so long.

 

[sunfish]

How has Paul not been sued into oblivion after all this time?

And it's been what, 30 years?

 

[Sandhill Crane]

The SuperSplit is a worthy machine to duplicate, and as you imply it has been done poorly in the past.
The additional features of the Split Second are valuable ones, especially the ability to road tow it using the retractable tongue and castor. I'm guessing there may be a suggested speed limitation due to the size of the wheels and tires.

I believe I heard in one of the videos a production rate of one cord per hour is possible. I can only picture one cord per hour production with the log lift as a staging table kept full by a second person, and a conveyor clearing the splits. To me that is one half cord per hour production per man hour. Perhaps that is splitting hairs. For example, if a TW-6 produces one cord per hour but it takes three men to run that much wood through it, calculated production would be one third cord per man hour. In this example the claimed one cord per hour production is equal, but the production per man hour is not. Gas consumption would not be equal between the two, nor the types of wood each would excel in.

In the end the difference between kinetic splitters themselves may simply be marketing as suggested in previous posts. A typical home owner who burns several cords of wood per year may not be make the jump to this type of splitter that he is not used to seeing in a box store, or the cost level of this splitter. Had I not come across this forum I may never of heard of kinetic splitters, or payed them much attention if I had.

 

[sam-tip]

opcorn: Looks like I have a reason to go to the farm progress show in Boone Iowa. August 26 - 28th. Hope I can get out of work one of those days so I can see this splitter.

What a Joke. Who makes a video of a log splitter only splitting one piece! The walnut piece almost came out and went flying. Walnut and elm are very difficult to split with a kinetic splitter. I don't like the taller wedge. Takes more power to push the bigger wood with the taller wedge.

They need to bring one of these splitters to a few of the Charity Cuts this fall and see what it can really do with a team of people feeding it wood. Two days of hard production is not a real true test but people will get a real feel for it.

I don't think I would trust towing this splitter.

I bought the Super Split because of a 30 year reputation of success. I think the split second log splitter has a long way to go.

 

[Oliver1655]

Again this crowd is a hard sell but on the whole they are fair.

Sam-Tip lives in the area & we might be able to get him to setup a charity cut close to the Boone Iowa show. Would the Split Second crew be up to the challenge? I would be willing to make the 5 hour drive up there to participate & give a fair review.

 

[sam-tip]

Google say 49 minutes to Boone. I always have plenty of logs to work up. Already scheduling our charity wood deliveries for this fall.

 

[Locust Cutter]

I looked at the rest of the marketing videos... The J-model S.S. doesn't buck/slam that hard when it binds and the belt slips... I think there might be potential there for the same fate of the Speeco splitters... Not trying to judge pre-maturely, IDK if the gearing is different or what, but Don's J-model did better in piss elm and Hedge than the videos of this thing showed. 5 hits for a piece of (as straight as it gets) straight piss elm looks bad to me. I do like the height adjustment and the theory of towing (around the lot most likely as I also agree with Sam-Tip here). The dual lever thing is crap.

Make it with a proper torsion axle, 62mph (100KMh) rated tires, give it the provision to sink very low for towing (lower center of gravity) and a swing-away neck to clear the production table (or better yet make it tow-able/drag-able from either end like the TW units), 1 control lever and keep/reinforce the log lift and you have a winner. Oh and make it a bit heavier all around as it looks flimsy in comparison to the "J" model, whether it's true or not. Flip out dual stabilizers for the front might be a good idea too.

 

[Locust Cutter]

Google say 49 minutes to Boone. I always have plenty of logs to work up. Already scheduling our charity wood deliveries for this fall.

When is the next charity cut? I'd like to make that if possible (as would Dad)... Matt and I can play dueling 9010's.

 

[Locust Cutter]

Also, either change the gearing, or give it 110lb flywheels (and a rack to match) and with the aforementioned, you'd have a S.S.-H.D. killer. The S.S. is what it is, because Paul has overseen production (Q.C) forever. He operates on the K.I.S.S. principle and is somewhat akin to Henry Ford ("You can have it any color you want, as long as it's black"). He builds three models with a few options but they're as simple and rugged as can be. They also have a loyal following (of people who take responsibility for their own actions (modifications and any inherent dangers)) which was built on the premise of delivering the best product for a fair price. The 2 handle system may be necessary for legal reasons but it should be easy to defeat The rest looks like it was built at a price-point with substantial markup on the MSRP and that bugs me.

 

[NHMike]

I am glad I bought my SS this past spring, especially after dealing with the DR version. Having said that, I would think that a manufacturing company would be able to price out their splitter better than the $3,200. They have to be buying the raw materials at a better price than SS just on volume alone. I know they are a large MFG, which carries a lot of overhead costs, but still, they have the advantage of buying power and production speed over SS.
If they truely want to get in this market and sell their splitters, they need to drop the price point for now and get rid of the 2 hand operation.

I do hope they are successful...... I think the kinetic splitters are a GREAT splitter, but just not enough people know about them and this is where a large mfg company can help with their marketing and advertising.

 

[KiwiBro]

I am glad I bought my SS this past spring, especially after dealing with the DR version. Having said that, I would think that a manufacturing company would be able to price out their splitter better than the $3,200. They have to be buying the raw materials at a better price than SS just on volume alone. I know they are a large MFG, which carries a lot of overhead costs, but still, they have the advantage of buying power and production speed over SS.
If they truely want to get in this market and sell their splitters, they need to drop the price point for now and get rid of the 2 hand operation.

I do hope they are successful...... I think the kinetic splitters are a GREAT splitter, but just not enough people know about them and this is where a large mfg company can help with their marketing and advertising.

What didn't you like about the DR you had?
Having used both, which engagement mechanism do you prefer? The DR you kinda pull towards you and the SS you lift up. No real difference between them perhaps?

The log cradle on the DR would have be ground off within the first few hours if it were me using it.

Oh, and even though nobody seems to think it matters, one of the best things I did to my SS was add a UHMWPE table for it. Super slippery. Didn't realise how much energy was being wasted sliding re-splits back to the wedge until splitting in heavy rain one day made me realise how good a slippery table is once you get used to it. It really helps get that wood back in place ready to catch the rebound of the rack off the rubber bumpers to make the engagement easier on body and machine. Not always possible but great when so.

 

[sunfish]

If you're goin to compete with Super Split that's been around a long time and has a stellar reputation, you have your work cut out for ya!

 

[Split Second Log Splitter]

That and an adjustable height are good features if they are rock solid. Likewise for the log lift if it's solid.

If it had the proven reliability of a SS (it doesn't and simply can't because it's new and not proven from years of real-world use), and the productivity of a SS (it doesn't, being so choked by the desire to be avoiding ambulance chasers) then it might be worth a bit more than the SS. But right now, unless considerably cheaper, I really can't see anything particularly compelling about the offering.

Perhaps they, like DR, have the reach to prospects well outside SS's scope, or simply want to respond to lateral selling opportunities they already create within Ag-Fab's existing lines or wanted to leverage this foray into a reasonably new market for them to expose more people to their other lines?

I dunno, but as a splitter being pitched to advanced wood hacks, in its current form the pitch is unlikely to be successful targeting such prospects.

The other thing is, even if Paul is forced to include a safety feature that if tinkered with will void the warranty, people will still buy his and circumvent the safety feature because we all know how few things go wrong with his splitter. I've replaced a few belts that are just wear items anyway. That's all, in a few thousand m3 of split wood. I don't get any warranty on the other side of the planet, especially when I had to almost smuggle it out of USA because he wouldn't sell to NZ. Don't need a warranty, it's just one of those bits of kit that will probably last a lifetime. Precious few things these days are designed and engineered to last so long.

Wanted to add some details the adjustable height/log lift comments. One of the reasons we went with the structural tube frame vs angle iron on the unit is we wanted a very stable splitting platform for both road towing and the adjustable height feature. We also decided to box in the sliding wheel spindle tube and double bolt it to maintain that stability. When we designed the log lift we added two forward support legs to the front outer edges of the table to provide additional support/stability. The lift worked fine without them but we thought it added a good amount of extra support. Both the lift and support legs quick pin on/off once you install the original mounting brackets for easy removal for towing. I should note that our log lift kit we will sell as an accessory also directly fits an existing Super Split unit so you can retro-fit if you want that feature once it becomes available.

As far as the durability factor we obviously cannot create 30 years of successful history overnight. It's kind of like that old Smith Barney commercial from when I was a kid. We will make our reputation in the market the old fashion way; We will earn it over time. No way to speed that up. I can say that our testing program was pretty substantial using in house testing, but also multiple different commercial splitters to do the majority of the testing. The commercial guys were doing between 100-300 Cord a year each. One of them even has a Blockbuster wood processor because of their volume. The guy with the BlockBuster actually has already bought one of our units to support his operation. We put over a 100,000 splits on our test machines in total and were very pleased with the splitting performance as well as not seeing any wear on the drive system.

As you can tell we are very excited about this new product and are looking forward to the continued feedback.

 

[sam-tip]

The two hand operation will slow the unit down. The add say up to one cord and hour. My SS HD has done two cord an hour with a crew working.

We are thinking October for a Charity Cut. Still in the should we stages. Would like to get back down to MO for another cut to help them out.

They showed the log lift lifting a smaller large round up off the ground but don't show the splitter splitting the round. What is up with that. Smells fishy to me. That taller wedge will have problems with the bigger pieces. I think they found the wimpiest elm ever for the video. Show it splitting some 12 to 14 inch elm pieces not the 6 inch limbs.

 

[Split Second Log Splitter]

The SuperSplit is a worthy machine to duplicate, and as you imply it has been done poorly in the past.
The additional features of the Split Second are valuable ones, especially the ability to road tow it using the retractable tongue and castor. I'm guessing there may be a suggested speed limitation due to the size of the wheels and tires.

I believe I heard in one of the videos a production rate of one cord per hour is possible. I can only picture one cord per hour production with the log lift as a staging table kept full by a second person, and a conveyor clearing the splits. To me that is one half cord per hour production per man hour. Perhaps that is splitting hairs. For example, if a TW-6 produces one cord per hour but it takes three men to run that much wood through it, calculated production would be one third cord per man hour. In this example the claimed one cord per hour production is equal, but the production per man hour is not. Gas consumption would not be equal between the two, nor the types of wood each would excel in.

In the end the difference between kinetic splitters themselves may simply be marketing as suggested in previous posts. A typical home owner who burns several cords of wood per year may not be make the jump to this type of splitter that he is not used to seeing in a box store, or the cost level of this splitter. Had I not come across this forum I may never of heard of kinetic splitters, or payed them much attention if I had.

Let me add a comment about the retractable tongue. There were two main reasons we developed this feature. first of all if you have a fixed tongue and you are splitting onto the ground you will quickly bury the caster wheel or whatever support you may have in the pile of split wood. Then you have to dig it out to move the unit. With our design you start at the far end of the pile of logs and as you split you just continue to move the unit along as you split leaving a pile of split wood as you go. Never have to dig out to move. Second reason is with the tongue retracted you can bring what ever you want to load into right up to the edge of the table and then split directly into the skid steer bucket, cart, trailer, pick-up bed, conveyor, etc. This is our preferred way to operate and only way to keep up with the machine if you are really clicking with multiple people.

As far as kinetic splitting in general we have split wood on every unit in the market today and some that are no longer in the market and all we can say is there is a big difference between splitting on one done right and one done wrong.

 

[Split Second Log Splitter]

What didn't you like about the DR you had?
Having used both, which engagement mechanism do you prefer? The DR you kinda pull towards you and the SS you lift up. No real difference between them perhaps?

The log cradle on the DR would have be ground off within the first few hours if it were me using it.

Oh, and even though nobody seems to think it matters, one of the best things I did to my SS was add a UHMWPE table for it. Super slippery. Didn't realise how much energy was being wasted sliding re-splits back to the wedge until splitting in heavy rain one day made me realise how good a slippery table is once you get used to it. It really helps get that wood back in place ready to catch the rebound of the rack off the rubber bumpers to make the engagement easier on body and machine. Not always possible but great when so.

Really like this low friction surface idea. Will have to add this to the list of possible future accessories.

 

[Split Second Log Splitter]

The SuperSplit is a worthy machine to duplicate, and as you imply it has been done poorly in the past.
The additional features of the Split Second are valuable ones, especially the ability to road tow it using the retractable tongue and castor. I'm guessing there may be a suggested speed limitation due to the size of the wheels and tires.

I believe I heard in one of the videos a production rate of one cord per hour is possible. I can only picture one cord per hour production with the log lift as a staging table kept full by a second person, and a conveyor clearing the splits. To me that is one half cord per hour production per man hour. Perhaps that is splitting hairs. For example, if a TW-6 produces one cord per hour but it takes three men to run that much wood through it, calculated production would be one third cord per man hour. In this example the claimed one cord per hour production is equal, but the production per man hour is not. Gas consumption would not be equal between the two, nor the types of wood each would excel in.

In the end the difference between kinetic splitters themselves may simply be marketing as suggested in previous posts. A typical home owner who burns several cords of wood per year may not be make the jump to this type of splitter that he is not used to seeing in a box store, or the cost level of this splitter. Had I not come across this forum I may never of heard of kinetic splitters, or payed them much attention if I had.

In case you are interested in seeing one first hand. I see that you are in Saugatuck, MI. Our next show we will have the splitter at is the Michigan Farm Expo in Lansing week of 7/21/14.

 

[Mike from Maine]

So is this made in the USA? Or overseas?


And please no BS about final assembly in the US. Either it has a "made in the USA" label or not.

.

 

[Oliver1655]

I would like to see one first hand but can not justify a 5-6 hour trip from Missouri to Iowa just for that. However, if you were to have it at a charity cut to demo/help, then that is a bird of a different color. The challenge is still open. Start a conversation with Sam-tip, set up a charity cut/demo then let us know when.

 

[NHMike]

On the DR, I had a couple parts that bent within the 1st month. I was watching the thread on here about the issues others were having. Even though DR was great with customer service and sent the part out right away, I didn't want to get stuck with it after the warranty expired.
The engagment handle was pretty easy to use. Lift or pull....same difference.
The log cradle was definitely a pain in the neck. I have all the same wood, and the SS has split everything I have on my wood lot. The DR did have some issues with some twisted birch..the SS goes right through it.

How did you attache the UHMMWPE to the production table?? Sounds like a good idea, although I have not really noticed any friction. It could also be that where I split, the splitter is on a slight downhilll...
I do like the log lift idea, although for me it is not needed. I load my round into the bucket of my tractor and position it so I can pull them off on to the table.