Hydraulic Vs rotary screw type splitters

[weldersunited]

Morning All,

 

Following on from the "show us your splitters" thread, I'd be interested to know fellow Arbtalkers thoughts on the 2 different types of splitter. For years I have run hydraulic ones in varying shapes and sizes and always turned my nose up at the rotary screw type ones like Hycrack.

 

As we were quiet I knocked up my own with some parts from the bay and I'm absolutely amazed about how quickly the thing eats though the logs, splits just about anything and the clincher for me is the convenient working height.

 

Don't get me wrong, the hydraulic one still has it's place and with 2 operators, one feeding and one operating it's also very quick but that means 2 people and 2 wages for proportionally not double the output per hour (my experience anyway)

 

I understand that this is really aimed at those who use their tractors as the power source- what are your experiences with the two types?

Edited January 3, 2013 by weldersunited

[Stubby]

I have both . The screw type is way quicker but has its own engine which is not quite torquey enough so for gnarly tuff stuff I use the hydraulic . If the screw type had a bigger engine I would use it for everything . At the moment I use it on the easy splitting stuff .

[Woodworks]

We have a Hycrack and I love it's ability to split anything but it also has problems. I split most of my wood when wet and often find that you get stringy bits holding the separated pieces of wood together and end up either pulling them apart or using a hatchet to finally separate them this seems worst with beech and it also leaves the logs looking a bit scruffy. The potential danger of this machine also scares me when a log gets slammed round on the table. I know most things are dangerous and good practice can mitigate most of the risks but this machine has given me more scares than any other and I have spoken to many people who have hurt themselves on one. I have now got myself a Fiskers axe and I now do 90% of my splitting by hand, it,s fast, quiet, uses no fuel other than a good cheese sandwich and is cheap to buy and keep sharp. I have never used the hydraulic type splitters so cannot compare the two.

[Paul Smith]

I have a cone on my processor and I won't use it! Tried it a couple of times and it either tries to brake your wrist or smash the window on the tractor! 👿

[Big J]

I have a self built screw splitter which I am very fond of, though it is limited in it's applications.

 

For sawmill offcuts, it is superb and with two people operating (one loading the table and cross cutting, the other splitting) you can fill a cubic metre crate every 15 minutes. It is also extraordinarily quick on smallish roundwood (sub 12-14 inches) provided it is fairly clean.

 

As it is belt driven, it's pretty much useless on very knotty timber. The belt slips and it gets stuck. It's also a pain to knock the timber off again. Either way, it cost peanuts to build as I either had the steel work, or traded timber for the 20hp V-twin or welding services.

 

I would have a hydraulic splitter too for knotty timber, but for my needs in the sawmill, the screw splitter is better.

 

Jonathan

[weldersunited]

Hi Woodworks, yes I know what you mean about the potential for harm- it's a pretty nasty piece of kit potentially- I feel the same about circular saws- reckon they're the devil's work and wont use one!

[Mortimer Firewood]

I have a hydraulic splitter that all the big stuff goes through and an eagle saw bench with a cone splitter on that i put all the sub 8 inch stuff through if its straight and clean the cone splitter is very good just got to keep it sharp. I have had some bits spin on me and it does wrap your knuckles a bit.