The last stump was bigger than I thought the trailer's wood sides could take, so I decided to go at it with the other tractor's FEL & some improvised ballast:
View attachment 522658
Baby Grand, I was about to suggest the "you need a grapple" line, but apparently you get by just fine without one!
Very nice indeed!!!! :thumbsup:
Nice. Is it really twice as productive and what were you using before the spitfire? Do you you need to split much that you can't easily lift onto the table or do you use your FEL to do that?
I think the first question about 'is it really twice as productive' is hard to answer without comparing to something specific??? Twice as productive as what? It's not as productive as a firewood processor, but it's more productive than any splitter I've used before. I was using a 3 point hitch version before, it was the type that pushes the wood off the end. The new splitter is
easily more than twice as fast as the old one! It's really not a fair comparison however, as they are two
completely different types of splitters.
Here is a time lapse of me using the 3 point hitch splitter on a log. (I should do a comparison time lapse with my new splitter) It really shows how slow/cumbersome and inefficient this was. Not only that, it was torture on my back. Everyone says that the great thing about 3 point hitch splitters is that you can adjust it to any height you want, which is true when your dealing with small logs. However, you need to lower the splitter to the ground to roll large logs up on it, and then your stuck at ground level. I've tried balancing the log on the splitter and raising the 3 point hitch, but it's just another step with more time and aggravation added.
For me personally, I do not like the 3 point hitch style, which is the very reason I didn't buy the Split-Fire version that goes on the 3 point hitch, despite how much I wanted one of these.
Is his a hydraulic splitter? I've found a 4 way to be more than twice as fast in the ideal sized wood. Otherwise it's not twice as fast, but definitely faster.
I find that the 4 way in general, is more than twice as fast, regardless of the style splitter. Not only are you making 4 splits per stroke, but you are eliminating the time it would take you to resplit wood if you were using only a two way.
I don't see how it would be much faster. 12" wood and under I push through the 4 way once and it takes me longer to get another stick of wood than it does to cycle. It might be a little faster on big wood, but I still spend a lot more time moving split pieces and rolling rounds than actually splitting. I'd think any time savings are going to be spent digging the splitter out at the end of the day.
When working alone, one person can only move so fast. There is a LOT of time to be saved outside of the splitter itself. Splitting the wood is the easy part, it's everything else that comes along with it that really increases time and energy. I will load up the log table and before the extend stroke is complete, I can roll another log down onto the splitter, and then split using the retract stroke. Is it faster than only splitting one way? Yes. However, it REALLY shines when you have two or more people and can keep logs on the lift. When my father and I are working together we notice a huge increase in speed. Honestly, if you ONLY work alone with the splitter, your not saving that much time at the end of the day no matter what splitter you have. I wouldn't be surprised if the savings adds up to a matter of minutes.
I find there is more to splitting wood than simply cycle times and tonnage ratings. A lot of people put SO much emphasis on
speed only ...I like to look at the whole picture, the way the entire process 'flows'. I try to minimize the stresses on my body, and minimize the unnecessary movements, because the faster I get tired/fatigued, the more likely it is that I'm going to hurt myself, or at best, lose productivity.
So, regarding the Split-Fire (
in my personal situation) I find it to not only be considerably faster than a standard style splitter, but also a lot 'easier'.
For me, this is the most productive, ergonomic, and least-stressful-on-my-back method (I have back issues at only 36 years young) shy of buying a $$$ firewood processor. Obviously everyone's needs are different, and I think that's the important thing to stress, for me, I resplit a lot of my wood because I like it split smaller than the 'average' splitter will make it on one stroke, so by avoiding the step where the log is pushed off the splitter away from me, I am eliminating the need to pick up the splits, wait for the retract, place the split, split it, and continue on the process until I've resplit the larger pieces down.
I think some questions are difficult to answer, because they are very situation dependent. It's hard to quantify the differences in speed and efficiency without side by side comparisons.
