Kinetic Wood Splitters, have they come of age?

[TomSeller]

Im also surprised the rack holds up any time at all. I guess the best thing it has going for it, is it's engaged while under no load. One day I intend to build a kinetic splitter with a 4 way wedge and no rack&pinion.

Rack and pinions are just gear teeth, not a new invention. They will be around for some time yet.

I'd be more concerned with how it engages to the stroke motion, but SS must have it figured out. I would think the Blount companies would as well, Woods, Speeco, Oregon. Anyone know how they engage smoothly?

 

[4570Man]

Best I can tell, they have a cam that forces the rack onto the pinion. Then the cam over centers so it can't be forced back up from load on the rack.

 

[TemporaryKubotaOwnerMark]

I looked at the kinetic at a home show in Boston in 1980,,
I did not like them as they require speed to get through tough pieces of wood.
A hydraulic is much safer,, splitting that requires high tonnage slows the hydraulic splitter down.
Even at slow speeds, I have seen firewood fly out of the hydraulic splitter when it finally breaks.
If that piece had been in a kinetic,, who knows where that piece would have flown,,,

I am amazed that rack can survive the high forces that are applied to the one or two teeth that is engaged to the flywheel gear.
They must work, they have been around for over 37 years.

But, IMHO,, if you treasure your teeth,, go with a hydraulic.

I love my 35 ton hydraulic. I'm not a fan of the kinetics. I'm not an opponent, either. Haven't used one, so I"m not sold, and I'm a bit skeptical of them doing well against really big wood. (Though the comment about 32" rounds did impress me.)

That said, I don't think your concern is valid. A hydraulic may be slow with tough wood, but that very slowness can build up tremendous forces in the wood, as you have mentioned. When it finally gives, something goes somewhere in a hurry.

I would guess that the danger is about equal. On straight-grained wood, both are just going to split it. Boring.

On gnarly stuff, it looks to me like both have the potential to get exciting, just in different ways.

I think if there were a real safety problem with them, it would be well known by now.

 

[RyeThomas]

The hard part is you really need to run one to see it work, they are very simple creatures and the rack and pinion last due to the fact the engage at no load then disengage at the end of the stroke again at no load. If anyone is in the Va area and wants to try mine feel free to pm me. I wouldn’t unless you want to spend some cash though.
Like I said before though, if I lived out west and had access to big rounds all the time (and big meaning upper 30-40” plus) a big hydro Quick cycle with a log lift and a hydraulic adjustable 6-8 way wedge would be the ticket but at 3-4X the price I don’t ever think I could swing it. Wallenstien and TimberWolf are awesome but good lord $$$$$. And by no means am I saying they aren’t worth it, just not in my budget.

 

[Sawyer Rob]

I own two hydraulic splitters and I have run a SS a fair amount. I've also see them run many times at shows...

The reason I prefer a hydraulic splitter is because I split tough wood and much of it is big, and that kind of wood is not what a kinetic likes.

My hydraulic has a 12" high wedge with a 4-way over it and it just plain EAT'S everything I push at it, big, tough crotches and everything else, NOTHING even slows it down...

I just don't like having to bam bam that kind of wood, I want a splitter that easily splits EVERYTHING, so a good hydraulic it is!

Also, a good hydraulic splitter with a 4-way wedge in mixed wood is just as fast or faster than a kinetic, I saw that proved at the firewood shootout competition last fall. A hydraulic with a 4-way beat a SS in the same size wood...

Also the SS seems flimsy compared to my hydraulic and it really shows up in BIG heavy wood, so it's different strokes for different folks.

BTW, the only two kinetics I'd even consider is SS or Split Second! They are the only two brands that are proven to be fairly reliable.

SR