So, split wood takes up more cubic feet than rounds....

Based on some of the examples shown earlier in the thread it does appear that unsplit wood will give you more cubic feet when split. It seemed to be 12%-18% more if I recall the post correctly.

I think the only thing conclusive is that it is easier to throw a cord of wood onto the low deck of a trailer than any of the trucks pictured.

that seems logical --
I have never had a reason to compare until I bought precut and brought it home to split
(friend) said I carried 7 cords home in 3 trips with a trailer --and I never carried that much in my trailer before ( too heavy)
we will see when I am done splitting it

tempted to run my own experiment
if it ever stops raining

--------------------------------------------
trailers
most guys I know use trailers for their own wood hauling.
but some that sell it have made dump trailers from wheel chair lift gate hydraulics

thanks for the replies
tc

how much is this?

in the back its about 4ft at the highest point



guy tried to tell me 2 cords i say its less but he is cool told me to split n stack n call back

my best guess would be 1.5-2 but split and stack and there you go

Pictures are always hard but I say it could be two once split and stacked.

i wasnt home when it was delivered so as far as this thread goes its hard for me to say but i will try to measure the rounds and comeup with how mcuh (4x4x8) it would stack to if left in the round , then when i split it take another photo and one last when stacked to see if its equal/more/less to what it equal in the round.... stay tuned..... but dont wait cause i have so much going on might take me a month!

http://www.arboristsite.com/showthread.php?t=110955 here's the same tread going on at the other site

that was very interesting.... however, i still believe split is better .. i wont doubt that if you have all rounds close in size (lets say 16' in dia and each 2' long) stacked 4x4x8 split it will be a cord (maybe more) but in a pickup you will have the advan. by splitting to take up every possible way to the top of the bed without rails thats a half cord... if you put rounds in (to the top of the bed) you would get only 1/3 of a cord because the 2 rounds on top of each other would be higher than the bed 16+16=32 inches .... but if you have 4 ft sides on a 8 ft bed with all same size rounds then yes it should be at least 1 cord when split .. problem is most people dont have all same size rounds and thats where the problem comes in

I like the Ken and Barbie stacks made from dowels.

that was cute huh?

I just thought they had too much time on their hands! :lol: Proved the point nicely I think.

How about filling a pickup 8 foot bed with rounds, go to the truck scale and weigh the load... Then fill the truck with a load of splits... which will weigh more? I don't know. But it would be interesting to see how much more the rounds weigh then the splits. I have a 3/4 ton truck with an 8 ft box, we load a lot of rounds in the truck, I am sure 3000 lbs or even more, and when we load splits its about half that weigh just by how the truck rides and how far the over load spring flex. Anyone have any thoughts? I don't have a truck scale near me or I would check out the weights.

Tom

yep Tom thats right after doing enough loads and blowning out a side wall tire rounds is the heavier load.

I sold firewood for several years. Stacked rounds never seemed to equate to stacked splits. The "weight" approach I think would end the debate. If not then the obvious is not what is being looked for.

The problem with weight comparisons is that wetter wood is heavier. Unless just fresh split, split wood dries faster so should shed some pounds. I wouldn't want to buy wood by the pound as there would be disincentive for it to be well seasoned.

The true test would be to load up a pickup with rounds to a given height and then unload, split, and reload to see if it piles higher. Any takers want to chronicle such a test? I think a small load would make disproportionately less difference than a large load.

this has been my arguement...... if we just load a pickup to the top of the bed you will fit more in splits because using a rounds od say 18" in dia you can only do one row .. you wouldnt be able to stack 2 18" rounds ... but if it was split you could pack it in nice and tight....

BUT in all fairness lets asy there is more volume in rounds.... no what if you use a processor where every piece is split perfectly???????? same size same width .... you should be able to fit that in the 5 gallon bucket

I'd just like to say that I've been searching for a round that fits perfectly into a 5 gallon bucket for about a week now, lol.

and then when I'm done with that I'm gonna get some dowels, a barbie splitter, and a scale sized pickup truck and load that in there.

Someone do some scale calculations for me if they get bored. I need someone to look at that truck with the rounds in it, then figure out what size dowels i'd need to get to fit into a toy truck that is 1:X scale.

then I'll try to fit those split dowels into the scale truck (without building up the bed's sides). I'm willing to bet good money they won't fit, no matter how I try to stack them.

Take your wonderful Fiskars and whittle it down until it fits.

ok, here's my experiment.

size of rectangle that would contain two extra large rounds:
59"x28" = 1652 square inches

size after split:
50x36 = 1800 square inches

that's pretty darn close to a 10% increase in size.

I had a lot of waste. the outer edge of one round was very crappy, so I ended up with those splits that don't go through, but instead bust off about halfway down the round and then you have to flip the round over to bust off the other half (it would take two pieces to equal a whole split). I'd say there was another square foot of splits that were wasted because of this. I wouldn't sweat this extra wood, though, because I think that even if it had all split perfectly and I restacked it then I'd still have been at about 10%. I had a slightly loose stack, but not so much that a restack was gonna change the outcome.

I'll have pics in a couple of days. It got dark and I don't think the cell phone flash worked well enough.

That's not enough for a test.
The more you do, the less it becomes.

yeah, i totally agree. Best case scenario would have been something more like a face cord or greater. my grad school stats teachers would crap their pants if they saw me call that "an experiment" lol.