The old log splitter thing again

CurtC · Oct 1, 2008

That harbor freight model has some pretty interesting things.. like that the hitch is mounted directly to the beam.. which is much stronger than the drawbar on the speeco units, but on the other hand, would require you to unhook from your tow vehicle to split vertically (which may or may not be an issue).

Of course if you go with the 30 ton HF model with the hydraulic log lifter.. who needs vertical splitting.

http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/Displayitem.taf?itemnumber=96907 1599 seems like a pretty good price. Someone alluded to the quality of the Subaru/Robin engines but wasn't specific as to good or bad. Care to elaborate?

(Edit: Answering my own question, from what I can tell, the Subaru/Robin engines have an excellent reputation for quality/reliability)

I forgot to mention, on the 2008 speeco units, the horizontal honda engines have the exhaust facing the front.. rather than pointing directly at the beam (duh).

studor · Oct 1, 2008

I did not comment on the quality of Subaru engines cause I was responding to a concern about not finding them on the web.

I only have one in my "fleet" of spark plug machines and so far it has been excellent. I think the HF machine with the log lifter would be terrific but could not bring myself to spend 1/3 more in order to lift wood that I can roll into place

--- guess I'm just frugal. I do think the HF machine is a lot more for the money than the others and the engine was just another added feature

-- it is a tough decision cause I know that they all work and have little annoyances. I would buy the HF machine again though
Steve

SPYDERLK · Oct 1, 2008

Farmwithjunk said:
The wheels are the same distance from the rail surface in both vertical OR horizontal position. Not "less friendly" in EITHER position. The orientation to the wheels is all relative to the pivot point and where the axle is located front to rear. Done properly, like this one seems to be, there's no crowding issues at all. All things being equal, even if the wheels WERE closer to the rail in vetical position, that has no effect on the height of the wheels in regard to the height of the rail. As I mentioned, I don't like using the splitter in vertical position, but it's extremely handy to be able to do so when the need arises.

Another reason why I like the pivoting rail, it swings up out of the way of servicing the motor.

I dont see that you are addressing what I meant about the problem of the work station being crowded against the wheels when horizontal. The horizontal mode on all H/V splitters I have seen positions the splitter throat partially over the axle. This complicates, and interferes with, the operators space thereby eliminating optimum options that are particularly important when splitting horizontally with a moving wedge. At best an inconvenience to surmount. At worst a situation that increases hazzard.
larry

Farmwithjunk · Oct 2, 2008

SPYDERLK said:
I dont see that you are addressing what I meant about the problem of the work station being crowded against the wheels when horizontal. The horizontal mode on all H/V splitters I have seen positions the splitter throat partially over the axle. This complicates, and interferes with, the operators space thereby eliminating optimum options that are particularly important when splitting horizontally with a moving wedge. At best an inconvenience to surmount. At worst a situation that increases hazzard.
larry

Speaking as someone who actually HAS a splitter that works in both vertical and horizontal position, I'd have to say your theory isn't holding water. I see ZERO inconvenience, ZERO "increased hazzard".

The axle and wheels are UNDER the "tables" on each side of the rail, with the wheels slightly forward of the actual area where the splitting takes place. (and mine IS the "moving wedge" type) . There's absolutely no need for the operator's feet to be UNDER the splitter while in operation. On the particular splitter I have, (which is same/simular to most) the wheels aren't in the way in any shape, form or fashion. As I see it, the wheels may even prevent the operators feet from being under the splitter, LIMITING THE POSSIBILITY of a hazzardous situation as opposed to CAUSING one. After using a borrowed "fixed horizontal" model, owning a vert/horiz 3-point model, and now owning a vert/horiz "trailer type", I'm 100% convinced your theory may only apply to a poorly designed splitter, and, at the very least, none of them I've ever seen or used.

As I operate my splitter, my feet are generally (at least) 10" to 15" away from the wheels. Obviously those wheels aren't in the way even to the slightest degree.

In any event, regardless of how or where you situate the axle, the pivot point for a vert/horiz beam could be positioned anywhere you so desire with little or no concern as the it's orientation to the axle/wheels. With that, even if you have a particular "issue" with the wheels being in your way, a pivoting beam is still a very doable option. One that I simply would not be without. Obviously, by the simple fact that most all the splitters sold today are vert/horiz types, that's the opinion shared by the vast majority.

Ford850 · Oct 2, 2008

acohen100 said:
Thing is that they come out to about the same price, so extra money is not the issue. Also, the cycle time on the smaller model (Choice #1 above) is 19s and is actually faster on the model with the bigger engine (Choice #2) - around 15s I think.

I guess that I am answering my own questions here... I agree with you that bigger may not always be better in this case. I am more itnerested in quality. I do have a pretty hefty older model with an 8hp Briggs that gets stuck on knots and I am currently using it to split rounds that are around 35+" diameter...it struggles. So I would prefer to have the extra power for the same price - even if I only rarely need it.

I'll bet your hefty old model doesn't have a 2 stage pump. That's what gives these newer models the power without stalling the engines. It shifts down, slowing the ram speed (1/2 speed maybe?) and pushes right through. Most splitting is done in the higher speed, but that 10% of the time when it's needed, it slows down and gets the job down with no stalls or stuck logs. At least that's how mine works on the wood I split.
I used to have a huge old splitter. It took me twice as long to split and at the end of the day my back was killing me. Now I enjoy splitting wood.

Ford850 · Oct 2, 2008

CurtC said:
I'm currently going through this same process.

I looked at the speeco units at tractor supply tonight. The new 2008 model of the "28 ton" (Was 27 ton last year) has a couple of significant improvements IMO.

1) horizontal honda engine, with auto-throttle.. my understanding is that they will throttle up/down as needed.

2) the fitting to the tank are mounted at the top of the tank.. and the filter hangs below, so you can change the filter without draining the entire tank.

That said, the pumps on the new ones are NOT, as far as I can tell, Haldex pumps.. where they were on the last years model.

The thing that really bugs me about the troy-bilt versions is that they are not a full beam design.

The auto throttle is interesting. Some of the Northern Tool models have that. After I bought mine without that feature, I'm not sure I would like it anyway. If you split by yourself and have down time between each cycle it would be great. I rarely let the ram get to it's full return position (that's when they idle down), so it was not as valuable as I thought it would be. Depends on your process, and could be a great fuel saver for some people.

CurtC · Oct 4, 2008

I think I was wrong about the auto-idle throttle, I think the 'consumer' honda on the huskee is just a fixed throttle.

I ended up spending the extra for a 28 ton Huskee. I couldn't lay eyes on a Harbor Freight anywhere, and all the stores around here are 'backordered' with no idea when they'll get them.

The 28 ton had a few things going for it, IMO, over the 22:
- bigger base plate
- horizontal shaft Honda engine
- since it's a horizontal shaft, the pump is up out of harms way
- 31 qt hydraulic tank vs. 17
- haldex pump vs. no-name (I found one later serial # 28 ton that had the haldex pump on it, I couldn't find any pattern, some of the bigger 34 ton units didn't have haldex, some did. None of the 22's I've seen had a haldex)

anyhow, after a couple years of manual splitting and pining for a splitter, I finally have one...

I'll try it out tomorrow.

smfcpacfp · Oct 4, 2008

I do have the old log splitter - self built from scratch about 30 years ago - what a beast. I have learned a few things over the years and have a few modifications, primarily on the I beam. The engine is a Wisconsin built in the early 50's. Somebody mentions there unit starts first time everytime. I hadn't used this for 4 years and the last year or so it sat outside in the weather with no cover (I'm not very proud to say that). I put a new spark plug in it, and it started on the first pull. I was truly impressed. Anyway I have a nice new cover for it, and I plan to spruce it up next summer:

I want to thank Ductape for giving me an idea about handling the big hefty pieces (i.e., the lifting tongs and the FEL on my tractor):

SPYDERLK · Oct 4, 2008

smfcpacfp said:
I do have the old log splitter - self built from scratch about 30 years ago - what a beast. I have learned a few things over the years and have a few modifications, [[primarily on the I beam.]] The engine is a Wisconsin built in the early 50's. Somebody mentions there unit starts first time everytime. I hadn't used this for 4 years and the last year or so it sat outside in the weather with no cover (I'm not very proud to say that). I put a new spark plug in it, and it started on the first pull. I was truly impressed. Anyway I have a nice new cover for it, and I plan to spruce it up next summer:

I want to thank Ductape for giving me an idea about handling the big hefty pieces (i.e., the lifting tongs and the FEL on my tractor):

Yeah, I noted back when you 1st posted that the I beam is bowed. When I made mine I worried about torsion stresses on the beam and I split a length of 3" pipe and welded it back together down the center of the beams web. My beam is only 4x6" but has held its shape
over 25yrs.
larry