I thought I offered to test first so stand in line mister :msp_tongue: .
DR Rapid Fire Rack & Pinion
- Thread starter VTWoodChucker
- Start date
Help Support Arborist Forum:
I thought I offered to test first so stand in line mister :msp_tongue: .
Locust Cutter
Sawing for Sanity
Me too, ME TOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I just have one question for DR Power; taking all of these suggestions for improvements into consideration, what would be a realistic date to expect a 2nd generation DR Kinetic splitter to hit the market. I am very intriqued by these splitters and am considering purchasing one, but after hearing all the proposed improvements in this thread, I am not sure now is a good time to purchase! :msp_confused:
I really don't think that is a fair comparison. DR is a big business with a big budget, lots of man power, and a bank roll to match. When you call SS, Paul answers the phone. While I do applaud the efforts of DR to build a better SS, until I see something more, my loyalty, and purchases will continue to be with SS.
KiwiBro
Mill 'em, nails be damned.
Sorry, you might be right. However, did DR/CHP start out with relatively small capital and grow their business through creating and seizing opportunities and if so, over what period? The patent protection that SS has enjoyed/paid for has run out. How long does that period last and after all that time others are now engaging the market in ways I don't see SS doing (DR) and/or pricing their products (although not quite apples for apples) significantly less than SS (TSC/Speeco/Blount).
Perhaps SS can learn a thing or seven from these new entrants about how to market the product and grow it's business?
Someone has already opined the new entrants may actually grow the market b/c they will expose more people to the flywheel concept. I agree that will happen, however, it does beg the question whether after all those years of patent protection, why couldn't SS reach the same people the new entrants will and left sales on the table like that for new entrants? Sales that would have helped it grow to afford the initiatives some new entrants roll out.
Further, what is SS doing to respond to the competition that was surely going to happen once patent protection expired? Does it have any new patents on new splitter developments helping keep it ahead of it's competition, given the massive head start it's had (I note DR POWER seems to have some 'patent pending' aspects to their splitter)? Has it attempted to build it's brand as the market original to the point the others are seen as less authentic and/or less credible?
I'd be surprised if the big new entrants haven't made offers to SS to buy their business and if they did but couldn't reach any agreement, are now quite happy to play in the same space with their own offerings until such time as SS rise to the competition or succumb to it and sell out.
Interesting times ahead for sure and no-doubt a few more kinetic splitter brands will surface. The key thing is whether any of them will address any of the ideas/issues many have noted in this thread and as such, are able to differentiate themselves from the competition on quality/features, or whether the SS design (now open to anyone to copy) is so good it can't really be bettered, but can be equalled and it then comes down to build quality/service and/or the price drops significantly as some kamikaze player with comparable quality comes in an takes the price-point position.
Last edited:
KiwiBro
Mill 'em, nails be damned.
Is it possible to power an elevator/conveyor with an electric motor? What I'm wondering is if those flywheels and the momentum they create could generate a enough wattage to power an 'optional-extra' conveyor, which along with a few of the other suggestions herein, these fast production splitters could really benefit from.
KiwiBro
Mill 'em, nails be damned.
There's only one thing for it then. Get that DR (and heck, let's go for broke and throw a TSC one in there too) to a GTG and await the evaluations from those lucky enough to try them head-to-head in the same woods. I note this is now the third time I've raised this suggestion. The ball is in your court, DR POWER. Get in before Blount do with their speeco/TSC offering.
Dalmatian90
Addicted to ArboristSite
Perhaps the owners of SS understand it's not what you gross that matters but what you net?
I don't know his books, but I have a good educated guess and the owner should be enjoying a very comfortable income making and selling a low volume of high value, high quality units for a relatively niche market that's willing to pay a premium for premium equipment.
That's a perfectly valid and legitimate business model.
The patents expired in July. Of 1997.
They've had small-shop competitors who've gone after them on price for a long time -- Wood Wolf, the Canadian copy cats, the Amish dude in Ohio.
Speeco doesn't appear to be a competitor to me. The quality just isn't there. Read the threads here -- they can be summed up as really great customer service and you're going to need it. You get what you pay for.
You don't see Timberwolf, Splitright, or American building cheaper hydraulic splitters to be sold through mass market retailers because they see the path to profits being a bigger volume of cheaper machines then what they make today.
DR does look like a potential competitor to me. SS has two markets -- one is production commercial users, and the second is weekend warriors who like to own premium equipment. DR is really good at meeting that weekend warrior market. I'd still suspect DR's entry is more a rising tide lifts all boats situation more then an eating your lunch situation.
Cmccul8146
ArboristSite Member
[
The patents expired in July. Of 1997.
Thanks for that information Dalmation. I've been saying in these threads for quite some time that the patants expired years ago, but didn't know exactly when. I think the exposure SS has gotten here on AS & testimony of dedicated SS users is what is really getting other manufacturers starting to produce them. The DR does seem to be the best built copy I have seen, but Paul still builds the BEST one on the market. He's been building & selling them for years and takes pride in producing a quality machine.
I haven't seen the Speeco flywheel splitter that TSC sells yet ,but from the pictures I've seen it appears to have some MAJOR problems that they need to address. The 2 handed operation backward facing handle seems like a PITA to me, but that lip on the end of the table is definitely a NO-NO that will only slow down production. Who wants to have to pick up every split to get it out of the way? Also need to get rid of the log cradle & extend their table on back toward the flywheels ,and let the table serve as the cradle. Change isn't always for the better!!!!!!!!
When I built my homebuilt copy of the SS, I didn't build it with any intention of commercially producing log splitters, and still won't.Just had to see if I could build one. Until I saw Paul demonstrating the Super Splitters , both gas & electric, I or no one else in this area had ever seen anything like this. I looked them over closely & burned the images into my memory. Owning a machine shop, I just knew that some day I would have to try to build one. Finally after a little over 3 years, I started on it in my spare time. Working on it between jobs, & drawing up rough sketches to make sure everything fit like it should without a bunch of trial & error , I finished it after 5 months. Admittedly , mine is no SS, but it hasn't failed me yet, & most importantly, I'm pleased with it. May someday build another one with a few improvements such as highway rated tires & wheels , little wider stance ,& trailer hitch, but otherwise there is little improvement to be made on these machines.
The patents expired in July. Of 1997.
Thanks for that information Dalmation. I've been saying in these threads for quite some time that the patants expired years ago, but didn't know exactly when. I think the exposure SS has gotten here on AS & testimony of dedicated SS users is what is really getting other manufacturers starting to produce them. The DR does seem to be the best built copy I have seen, but Paul still builds the BEST one on the market. He's been building & selling them for years and takes pride in producing a quality machine.
I haven't seen the Speeco flywheel splitter that TSC sells yet ,but from the pictures I've seen it appears to have some MAJOR problems that they need to address. The 2 handed operation backward facing handle seems like a PITA to me, but that lip on the end of the table is definitely a NO-NO that will only slow down production. Who wants to have to pick up every split to get it out of the way? Also need to get rid of the log cradle & extend their table on back toward the flywheels ,and let the table serve as the cradle. Change isn't always for the better!!!!!!!!
When I built my homebuilt copy of the SS, I didn't build it with any intention of commercially producing log splitters, and still won't.Just had to see if I could build one. Until I saw Paul demonstrating the Super Splitters , both gas & electric, I or no one else in this area had ever seen anything like this. I looked them over closely & burned the images into my memory. Owning a machine shop, I just knew that some day I would have to try to build one. Finally after a little over 3 years, I started on it in my spare time. Working on it between jobs, & drawing up rough sketches to make sure everything fit like it should without a bunch of trial & error , I finished it after 5 months. Admittedly , mine is no SS, but it hasn't failed me yet, & most importantly, I'm pleased with it. May someday build another one with a few improvements such as highway rated tires & wheels , little wider stance ,& trailer hitch, but otherwise there is little improvement to be made on these machines.
What isn't.....:bang:
yonny_eric
ArboristSite Lurker
great post
Although not alone, I'm all for seeing more flywheel/inertia wood splitters. I'm a little confused why there is so much fuss over the "copying", doesn't this apply to nearly ALL hydraulic splitters? As for ideas, I will provide a few:
1. Put the sled rollers *below* the I-beam plate. On occasion, the SuperSplit HD we use gets wedges of wood get jammed under the sled (this is especially true when doing red oak). Usually we can free it by hitting the push-plate with a chunk of wood. However, numerous times we had to loosen up the bolts to get the wedge out.
2. Already stated, but it's horribly top-heavy: mount the darn engine/motor below the beam...
3. Set it up to be towable by putting side-riggers on it (like on DOT warning signs) to permit it to be jacked up. Use 2-1/2" 10/12 gauge galvanized perforated square tubing for the sleeves and 2-1/4", 3' sections for the jacks. These are readily available for sign posts.
Although it's probably foolish, there were some large bull dozer cogs (~135# each) at the transfer station. I grabbed them up and currently working with a steel fabricator friend of mine to make the "Dozer Splitter". Rough drawings attached (doesn't have the outrigger jacks).
View attachment 199537View attachment 199538
Although not alone, I'm all for seeing more flywheel/inertia wood splitters. I'm a little confused why there is so much fuss over the "copying", doesn't this apply to nearly ALL hydraulic splitters? As for ideas, I will provide a few:
1. Put the sled rollers *below* the I-beam plate. On occasion, the SuperSplit HD we use gets wedges of wood get jammed under the sled (this is especially true when doing red oak). Usually we can free it by hitting the push-plate with a chunk of wood. However, numerous times we had to loosen up the bolts to get the wedge out.
2. Already stated, but it's horribly top-heavy: mount the darn engine/motor below the beam...
3. Set it up to be towable by putting side-riggers on it (like on DOT warning signs) to permit it to be jacked up. Use 2-1/2" 10/12 gauge galvanized perforated square tubing for the sleeves and 2-1/4", 3' sections for the jacks. These are readily available for sign posts.
Although it's probably foolish, there were some large bull dozer cogs (~135# each) at the transfer station. I grabbed them up and currently working with a steel fabricator friend of mine to make the "Dozer Splitter". Rough drawings attached (doesn't have the outrigger jacks).
View attachment 199537View attachment 199538
Welcome to the site...
Your drawings are very impressive. I wish I had the means to display my ideas like you have.
As for the fuss over copying....while it may be legal patent wise and such, the idea of one business reverse engineering another mans work and selling it as their own just does not set well. I do applaud the interest of other businesses to build a flywheel type machine, but as discussed there are many changes that could be made to the existing SS design to make a unique machine that performs better than the "original".
The company i retired from used to make a steel worker. It cut flat bar,angleiron,notched and punched holes.It is a flywheel machine they made in the 40s and 50s. It workes verymuch like these spliters. Now are they a copyof that old ironworker. I dont think ss was the first to inventa flywheel machine.
i
i
Exactly!
Copy shmopy.
This type of system was used on many machines before hydraulics took over.
I've got no problem with what DR and Speeco are doing. Patent protection gives an inventor a reasonable time frame to profit from his invention. After that he needs to innovate again. This keeps progress going.
The SS, while a great machine, is not the greatest adaptation of an inertia system, as evidenced by the many inprovements suggested. Time for them to put on their thinking caps and make it better and get some new patents if being the only game around matters so much.
Mr. HE
Exactly!
Copy shmopy.
This type of system was used on many machines before hydraulics took over.
I've got no problem with what DR and Speeco are doing. Patent protection gives an inventor a reasonable time frame to profit from his invention. After that he needs to innovate again. This keeps progress going.
The SS, while a great machine, is not the greatest adaptation of an inertia system, as evidenced by the many inprovements suggested. Time for them to put on their thinking caps and make it better and get some new patents if being the only game around matters so much.
Mr. HE
Your post lacks logic, and I say that politely.....
I am all for improvement, adaption, and building a better machine. I could care less if you patent it. But.....there is a very thin difference between the current SS and the DR, and a lot of that has to do with paint. Take the concept of the machine, and all the input given here, perhaps even put it through the paces yourself, and then build your own machine. I would say if anything the Speedco machine at least attempted to apply a new design to the inertia concept.
So you basically agree with me? Based on what you just posted you should.
Mr. HE
I don't believe you and I are on the same page.
