So, what's better, fat or skinny wedges?

[LLigetfa]

I see both kinds of wedges on log splitters. Mine is fat so it spreads the log apart quickly. I think it shortens the distance the ram has to travel and saves having to tear the pieces apart as much.

I haven't used a splitter with a skinny wedge to compare but I image guys renting/borrowing/working with other splitters could chime in. It seems the moving wedges on the ram tend to be fatter than the fixed wedges on the end of the beam. This is probably so the surface of the ram that the oil seal wipes stays out of harm's way.

 

[triptester]

The best wedge shape depends on the wood being split. Some wood species are straight grained and these will split quickest with a wide wedge. Tougher stringy wood often split better with a narrow wedge. Many have gone to a wedge that starts out narrow then has spreader wings. On tough to split wood wide wedges require more tonnage .

Commercial splitters built for firewood production do not use wide wedges because they put more strain on the equipment and don't allow for multi-split wedges.

 

[Henz]

LLigetfa, you have the same brand of splitter that I have, MTD I beleive although mine is much older. I ahve a 31 ton with an 8hp engine. I ahve the same wedge as yours though and have never had a problem splitting anthing with it. Question, what is that second bolt? the one that is not connected to the ram arm?

 

[LLigetfa]

That pic (from another thread) was to show the original bolt that was much smaller than the hole and the threads extended into the shear zone. I put in a larger bolt with no threads in shear.

I was looking at a double-action splitter that had a narrow wedge that was double-edged where the wedge split in both directions. If it was a fast moving wedge, and your splitting required a lot of wedge travel, the narrowness wouldn't matter. With the wide wedge on my splitter, I seldom have to go more than an inch or two into the wood except of course that stringy Elm.

I was thinking about a design that used no hydraulics and used a double-bitted wedge that swung back and forth like a pendulum.

 

[SolarAndWood]

I was thinking about a design that used no hydraulics and used a double-bitted wedge that swung back and forth like a pendulum.

Don't you think it would just bounce like someone who doesn't know how to swing a maul? Maybe a circa 1700s French guillotine?

 

[SolarAndWood]

The wedges on my two splitters largely follow the big fat end of ram and thin end of beam description. I can hear the motor load down a little with the big one and rarely hear the small one load down even though it is only a 2 hp electric.

 

[savageactor7]

I'd have to say the wedge on our American splitter is very thin...similar to an axe. Probably as thin as you'll ever see on a splitter. Every year there's a couple of instances where a round won't split and I have to bash it off the wedge with a sledge... and of course that would be elm were talking about.

 

[LLigetfa]

That middle pic looks like you hit it more than once with an axe, probably to finish off some stringy stuff stuck on the wedge. Not sure why you wouldn't just chase it through with another round.

Both the Super Split and the Split Fire have skinny wedges. I figure the skinny wedge would have less resistance through the wood and there would be no advantage to short cycle the Super Split or the double bit Split Fire.

I didn't mean a free swinging pendulum. Was thinking something like the rack and pinion Super Split except not linear. Picture a large wheel like on a steam locomotive and a connecting rod to convert rotation to back and forth. That way it would have greater leverage as it comes off the apex of the turn and least leverage tangential mid way through the cycle. Rather than have it return empty, it could stop at the end of its swing, every half turn of the flywheel.

 

[SolarAndWood]

That middle pic looks like you hit it more than once with an axe, probably to finish off some stringy stuff stuck on the wedge. Not sure why you wouldn't just chase it through with another round.

That splitter is on its 3rd generation of users and gets used by every member of the extended family. I think when it still had the gasoline motor on it, it did not have the oomph to finish the gnarly or large stuff. The electric motor seems to have solved that. The opening is only 18 inches, so it has to be pretty close to through to follow with another.

 

[Henz]

ok, I ahve had that happen to me before when a split gets wedged..There is a very simple fix to this and you dont have to use a sledge hammer to get it off..You simply back the ram out again and place another piece on and split it, the new piece will push the wedged piece off and split it at the same time.

This also works well when your splitter jsut cant seem to split a piece because the further out the ram goes the less "power" it has to split..so I back out the ram and use a shorter piece inbetween the ram and the hard to split piece and 99% of the time it will split.

 

[computeruser]

Given the choice, I'd take the fat wedge over the skinny. Most wood will pop apart faster with this type, which means you can short-stroke most splits and pick up time. The skinny is what I currently have (Timberwolf TWP1) and it works fine and slices through things that its 4" cylinder would probably not split with a fat wedge. But if production was my goal, and especially on a wedge-on-ram splitter, I'd want a fat wedge.

 

[kevin j]

there was quite a long discussion of thin vs. steep vs. two stage wedges in the las tmonth, either here or I think it was at AS.
Two stage sort of combines some adv of each.
The optimum depends on the type of wood being split.

 

[Gooserider]

IMHO, I like the two stage on a wedge-on-ram splitter as a good compromise design - it shears some of the stuff that a fat wedge would crush, and gets the easy stuff to pop on a pretty short stroke.

On a wedge-on-beam type splitter, where the idea is to push the finished splits off the end, I think a skinny wedge is better as it allows the splits to go straight back better, instead of being deflected outwards by the wedge...

Gooserider

 

[Stephen in SoKY]

The outermost wing on my 3ph cantilever splitter is 16" wide:

While the other 2 wings are somewhat narrower:

Here's the actual wedge under the wings:

 

[SolarAndWood]

The outermost wing on my 3ph cantilever splitter is 16" wide:

What happens when you drop that into a 20" round?

 

[LLigetfa]

The outermost wing on my 3ph cantilever splitter is 16" wide:

My guess is that splitter has a limited range of travel so it has to make up for it by prying it apart wide.

 

[Stephen in SoKY]

The outermost wing on my 3ph cantilever splitter is 16" wide:

What happens when you drop that into a 20" round?

It splits it. My usual method is to split rounds 24" & up into 3 or 4 pieces intially, often I'll take off both sides leaving a rectangular piece from the middle, then split each to size. Oak & Ash present no problem whatever for it, but in all honesty Shagbark Hickory does get dicey at times. Pignut splits better than shagbark, I assume that's due to the species rather than the splitter though. I've often wondered why cantilever splitters failed to be more popular? I use a 4X8 cylinder so cycle time is good. I'll have to measure the throw or arc sometime for whoever inquired above. Mine has 2 pivot holes so it covers a range of wood lengths once set to the approximate length you're splitting.

 

[SolarAndWood]

It splits it. My usual method is to split rounds 24" & up into 3 or 4 pieces intially

Does this mean you use all the wings on the first pass?

 

[Stephen in SoKY]

S&W;, It doesn't act like the 4 way wedges I've seen if that's what you're thinking. I get one split per pass just as if I were using a regular splitter with a standard wedge. I was trying to say that while the wedge reaches virtually to the center of a 24" round, and will split the round into 2 pieces, I prefer to take of the outside third of each round rather than split right down the middle. A habit of mine rather than a limitation of the splitter and one which in retrospect I shouldn't even have mentioned.

 

[LLigetfa]

I strive for no larger than a 6 inch face on any split, so up to 6 in rounds I split in two down the middle. 12 inch rounds I split in four down the middle. 18 inch rounds I would slab off into thirds and then split those three ways in what I call a tic-tac-toe (#) pattern.

The sliding wedge on my splitter is 6 inches tall so it will only reach that far in from the edge of any round. Large rounds won't always cooperate and split in a straight line, especially when going away from the centre. Really large round I usually split down the centre first and then slab off from there.

 

[SolarAndWood]

Large rounds won't always cooperate and split in a straight line, especially when going away from the centre.

When I use my big splitter, I get that same lack of cooperation. However with the little one with the skinny wedge, you can almost slice like a knife. I split down a cord and a half of pine small for kindling/fire revitalization this week. It worked really well for that purpose. My fat wedge makes a mess of pine.

 

[SolarAndWood]

S&W;, It doesn't act like the 4 way wedges I've seen if that's what you're thinking.

That's exactly what I was thinking. The search for the cheap and bombproof one pass splitter continues.

 

[LLigetfa]

The search for the cheap and bombproof one pass splitter continues.

Search no more. The chomper From Rainier Hydraulics is your answer. Up to 4 cord per hour and no saw to sharpen. Their 0-2-4-8 way adjustable wedge goes from zero to eight-way with the pull of a lever.

http://www.chomper.net/

 

[SolarAndWood]

The search for the cheap and bombproof one pass splitter continues.

Search no more. The chomper From Rainier Hydraulics is your answer. Up to 4 cord per hour and no saw to sharpen. Their 0-2-4-8 way adjustable wedge goes from zero to eight-way with the pull of a lever.

http://www.chomper.net/
http://www.chomper.net/8 Way Splitter.html

lol...it seems to meet the bombproof and single pass criteria, fails miserably on the cheap criteria. For reference, I've got a couple hundred bucks into revitalizing the 2 decades old splitters I currently have. I'm not convinced that processing logs is that much better than bucking with a good saw unless you are processing a lot of wood. A single pass splitter on the other hand would save a lot of hours.

 

[LLigetfa]

lol...it seems to meet the bombproof and single pass criteria, fails miserably on the cheap criteria.

You didn't specify any criteria. In this world you can have Good, Fast, Cheap. Pick any two!

For the price of $38,800.00 when you think of it, if you pay someone to work with you, it doesn't take long for it to pay for itself. When you compare it to the price of that Bobcat mounted splitter that is emailed and posted everywhere as porn, this thing's got it beat!

http://www.hahnmachinery.com/fp160.html