Chipper Advice

[Mr Ed]

Sorry TM, but the people I talk too are religeous about blade changes. As for changing the bearings, why? Good bearings should outlast the machine, not need changing every 500 hours. ANd if a bearing wears, it should not take out your mainshaft and flywheel...

 

As for being cheaper than the competition, and with cheaper parts, have you got facts and figures to back up that statement?

 

Edit -

Your last statement, are you saying that the TW has a 6 x 11 infeed... or that it does'nt need one...?

[Pete Mctree]

I'll also disagree on the blade being the cause of the bearings collapsing. I've had to replace mine 3 times now (it has done 1800plus hours though) and i've always maintained sharp blades. It's just a design fault that has never been rectified imo.

 

Any chipper at 6in capacity and weighing 750kg or less with a deisel engine has to compromise somewhere. Each manufacturer just seems to choose a different place to save the weight.

[b101uk]

Good job my machines have a 24" x 34" wide infeed then....

 

looks good

 

what’s its weight?

 

what’s the nose weight on the tow hitch? as the landing gear looks quite big and the engine is well forward to the rest of the weight

 

I assume its on air brakes rather than the highly illegal yank electric brakes?

[treemotion]

My infeed is 6inches across plus about 1 cm and 11 inches from top to bottom i measured out of curiosity.

 

I did not state bearings fail because of blades just that keeping them sharp increases the machines overall life.

 

My only quibble is the timberwolf is a excellent machine and its good value to me any way nice and light i move it myself fits down tight spaces really great all rounder for small firms. Just annoys me when people say they are crap the only one worth mentioning is the schlipoops there good but not that good.

[Mr Ed]

looks good

 

what’s its weight?

 

what’s the nose weight on the tow hitch? as the landing gear looks quite big and the engine is well forward to the rest of the weight

 

I assume its on air brakes rather than the highly illegal yank electric brakes?

 

 

On that model, about 6500kgs. The engine is rear balanced by the weight of the drum and feedworks. The actual noseweight I'm not sure of, but a U900 was able to tow it without any undue compression of the rear springs.

That one is running on electric brakes. The buyer was given the option of air or hydraulic, but was happy enough with the electric system. VOSA have been happy enough with electric braking systems. wish more trailers were fitted with them over here.

[Dean Lofthouse]

TW150s were bad for shearing motor spindles on the feed rollers if I remember correctly??

[igottacabstar]

My infeed is 6inches across plus about 1 cm and 11 inches from top to bottom i measured out of curiosity.

 

I did not state bearings fail because of blades just that keeping them sharp increases the machines overall life.

 

My only quibble is the timberwolf is a excellent machine and its good value to me any way nice and light i move it myself fits down tight spaces really great all rounder for small firms. Just annoys me when people say they are crap the only one worth mentioning is the schlipoops there good but not that good.

 

What Timberwolf have you got?? None have an aperture of 6"x11" - I just checked on their website.

TW150 6"x6"

TW190 7.5"x7.5"

TW250 10"x12" (10" machine)

Also, infeed apertures are usually wider across than what they are top to bottom.

I reckon you're telling a few porkies:s:

[treemotion]

2001 ill put pic with ruler later gotta go out now some of us have work to do lol.

[igottacabstar]

2001 ill put pic with ruler later gotta go out now some of us have work to do lol.

 

I got 3 men out today:grinning-smiley-003

[b101uk]

Mm, a 6 cyl ~6000cc is going to be the best part of 550kg just as a bear unit, by the time the sub frame, cowling, rad, & drive for hydraulic motors etc are added its gong to be 750kg+ so unless the feed chute is 750kg+ its self it is not going to counter all the weight,

 

If say the feed chute was ~250kg that would negate about ~250kg engine drive unit however to negate the other ~500kg the feed drive witch is centred ~1.5ft behind the rear axle would have to weight ~2500kg to counter the remaining ~500kg witch is centred ~5ft forward of the front axel, however all that is a little academic because if it was balanced if you put 500kg of wood on the feed chute it would lift the front of the chipper and I don’t see any support legs on the rear so I would have to guess you have a trailer hitch nose weight of ~600kg or more.

 

Anyway FYI:

 

TRAILERS - TOWING EYE WEIGHT:

For a road truck the maximum nose weight for a “balanced” trailer is “1000kg or 10% of the trailer gross weight, whichever is less” this is an EU wide regulation covering drawbar couplings with respect to static loaded nose weigh or the “S” (Zul Stutzlast) element on EU Type Approved (TA) truck towing equipment.

 

Given the ~6500kg gross weight the maximum nose weight on the towing eye is 650kg (10% of gross weight) when behind a truck, if the “S” value is >10% or 1000kg when uniformly loaded then the trailer is no longer a “balanced trailer” but an “unbalanced trailer” witch when towed behind a truck are illegal so are automatically classed a “semi-trailer” requiring an HGV1 driving license simply because they are illegal because they are sat in a grey area of the law (>10% <20% of the trailer gross weight superimpose on the towing vehicle) a “semi-trailer” is any trailer witch superimposes >20% of the trailer gross weight on to the towing vehicle via ANY means unless it is permanently coupled using a TA permanent coupling.

 

The only exception to the above witch is practical are agricultural motor vehicles (AMV’s) of the type “agricultural, horticultural or forestry tractors” witch may tow “unbalanced” trailers with “S” value (static loaded nose weigh) of up to <35% of the trailer gross weight superimpose on the towing vehicle, however this only covers “agricultural trailers”, “agricultural trailed appliances (a chipper could fall in this class)” & “agricultural trailed appliance conveyers” used for agricultural, horticultural or forestry purposes only.

 

ELECTRIC BRAKES:

Electric brakes are illegal in the entire EU for ANY on-road use, the VOSA should NOT be happy at all & obviously don’t know there arse from there elbow at your local office, so unless you have it in writing from the VOSA technical HQ then I would be very wary of the information your getting from the VOSA local office.

 

Braking regulations for vehicles and trailers are clearly set out in the Construction & Usage regulations (C&U) for weight, use, speed and type etc, in brief

Car’s, trucks, vans & ALL vehicles in excess of 20mph (including Unimog’s, Fastrac & AMV’s travailing faster than >20mph):

1: if a trailer is fitted with any brake parts then the entire brake system must be in work order regardless of weight and speed.

 

2: trailers <750kg do not need brakes, but if they are fitted they must work.

 

3: trailers <3500kg may use over-run brakes OR 2 line fail-safe air brakes.

 

4: trailers >3500kg must use 2 line fail-safe air brakes.

 

5: the MINIMUM braking efficiency for trailers towed by Car’s, trucks, vans & vehicles in excess of 20mph is >50% of the trailers weight at any time and every axel must have a braking efficiency >50% of the weight superimposed on it.

 

vehicles not exceeding <20mph (excluding Unimog’s, Fastrac & AMV’s travailing faster than >20mph):

1: if a trailer is fitted with any brake parts then the entire brake system must be in work order regardless of weight and speed.

 

2: trailers <750kg do not need brakes, but if they are fitted they must work.

 

3: trailers <3500kg may use over-run brakes OR single line hydraulic brakes OR 2 line fail-safe air brakes.

 

4: trailers >3500kg must use a minimum of single line hydraulic brakes OR 2 line fail-safe air brakes.

 

5: the MINIMUM braking efficiency for trailers towed by AMV’s that are slower than <20mph is >25% of the trailers weight at any time and every axel # must have a braking efficiency >25% of the weight superimposed on it #.

 

# = not every axel on an agricultural trailer needs to have brakes fitted, I.e. a 2 axel trailer only needs 1 axel braked however to get the >25% of trailer weight as braking efficiency from 1 axel of a pair then that axel need a >50% braking efficiency of the weight superimposed on it to get >25% of the trailers weight as braking efficiency!

 

6: agricultural trailed appliances beneath 14230kg gross weight used <20mph don’t require any brakes, however if they were fitted with brake shoes/pads, drums/disks, back-plates/callipers, pull-rods/camshafts/slack-adjusters then the brakes must work via a prescribed method in the C&U regs, witch electric brakes cannot do!

 

However if the said chipper was used just on a site witch as I cannot see any lights on it is probably the case then it is obvious that electric brakes are better than no brakes at all as per an agricultural trailed appliance in 6 above.