Boss Industrial brand 20 ton Dual action log splitter

[ebinmaine 78,162]

Looonng first post.... LOTS to write....

 

 

For several years we've been considering an upgrade to our old wood splitter. It's a very well (re)built decades old unit that was home shop rebuilt in 2012 by a local logger.  

After 14 seasons of splitting it's understandably getting tired.

We started a thread here, got some great info.

 

 

 

We researched on other sites and spoke to our favorite small engine repair place. 

We decided that it would need the entire hydraulic system replaced and a new larger engine to meet the goals.

Not at all opposed to this but it would easily cost $2,000 +.

 

 

 

While doing research online we found a couple dual action splitters.  Very intriguing. 

 

We started a thread on that here:

 

..... And again learned some great information along with creating some additional thought processes.  

 

 

We decided to get the Boss model over the HF model because of several factors. 

1. Kohler engine on the Boss. 

2. Too many pivot/ wear points on the HF. 

3. Hydraulic control lever is centered on the Boss vs one sided operation in the HF. This is a very convenient feature for Trina in particular because she's prone to jumping around wherever the workload can be accomplished the best.  

4. Overall frame strength and build quality appears better on the Boss than the HF according to multiple online sources.  

5. The Boss is certified for road towing. The HF is not.  (We'll visit that below)

 

 

The new Boss splitter arrived this week. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Overall it looks good. I agree with  #4 above. The welds are solid. The frame is good thick steel.

The cylinder is encapsulated in a square slider tube which is encapsulated in the frame.  Purely a flat surface sliding design with no bearings. @Ed Kennell

Grease will be applied. Often.  @peter lena

 

 

North American design but made in china.

Build quality is reasonable except for a few things. 

The trailer tongue mount is too narrow for the main frame.   We had to use washers to set the tongue to one side and add longer bolts to the other side.

 

I WOULD NOT tow this unit on the road the way it's sent. IMHO it was not safe.  

That - quite frankly - pi$$ed me off.  

 

This side is flush.  

 

 

This side is not. 

 

 

See the space difference...

 

Now imagine trying to "tighten" that enough to close the space using low quality hardware... or even great quality hardware. Not happening buster.  

 

 

The entire hardware package is the unfortunate cheap trash we see all too often on cheap items. Nut & bolt head sizes are inconsistent (WTH??)  and lacking quality. 

I upgraded several bolts, added washers, and replaced the disgustingly lightweight axle castle nuts with better quality pieces.  We were unable to drive the steel press fit axle dust caps in so we popped the plastic ones back on.  This is fine unless/until we ever need to road tow it.  

The axle inner seal surface isn't even properly machined. 

 

If this was going to be towed often or long distance it would eat seals.  Fast.  

 

 

After using it for only a few minutes it's developed an issue already. 

 

Like many splitters, It has a two stage hydraulic system. When the pressure reaches a certain level the system changes from high speed low pressure to low speed high pressure. 

This one WAS working like that. Now it starts high speed. Goes low speed and stays there. Shut it off and move the lever to release system pressure. Restart and repeat. I'm hoping it's an adjustment, not a defective part.  

 

 

 

 

We've run some decent sized beech wood through it. That went well.  

Power level seems good. 

We're thinking it should be faster though. That may be related to the above issue or possibly because it's new and needs to break in.  Or.... it's just slower than we hoped.  

 

 

Again, overall I believe it'll be a good addition once the bugs are worked out.  

The work habits obviously are very different from a single action to this dual action. The fact that one can use both directions is very nice. Very weird at first too.  Once a different and properly adjusted set of habits is developed we can see a new kind of usefulness. 

 

We did get the additional cross piece to split horizontally. It has its place but also has its challenges. The second split is nice IF the pieces of wood separate correctly. Because we use a lot of beech wood, that isn't practical much of the time. 

 

 

I'll document repairs and changes in this thread.  

 

Some changes we figured on making even before purchase, no matter what splitter we got.  

 

1.  Wheel size, tongue height & length increase.

The OE tires are 4.00/4.80 x 8. Seems most splitters are standard at that. 

I'd likely add a set of 5 lug hubs and increase to a full size tire like we did on the other splitter. Tongue height and length will be adjusted to level and to compensate for the additional table length..(Next comment)

 

2.  Larger flat work table.

As you can see in the last picture above there are small catch shelves on the sides. The principal is good. The upward angle is actually a bit of a challenge to work with. The wood pieces want to fall back into the work area. Remember gravity? 

We're thinking about adding a much larger, flat work table to catch the pieces on both sides.  

Start the split. Set one half aside. Work with the other. Have plenty of space to move the shrinking pieces around and off the table.  

 

[peter lena 9,833]

@ebinmaine  think I  would just go over /  after any part / area of it  , that  seams to  struggle , not as smooth as you expect , obviousely  the slide track area , a synthetic  h/d fifth wheel  grease  , would  probably  enhance track slide , sure you already have plans , with your insight , pete

[ebinmaine 78,162]

2 minutes ago, peter lena said:

sure you already have plans

 

Yessir.  We have some red spray grease already coating the whole inside area. Watching for new wear patterns as the new red paint wears off. Those areas will be well coated in the future.  

[Handy Don 16,218]

Lots to learn, for sure.

 

Is the single-split cutter available? Would swapping be difficult for when you might want it?

 

Given that the extend and retract cylinder volumes differ, are the speeds in the two directions different (apart from the intended two-speed business)? This is just me being curious .

 

On the one auto-dual-speed splitter I’ve used, the “kick down” was integrated into the hydro pump with a pressure-against-a-spring valve (conceptually similar to the acceleration valves in Eaton and Sunstrand hydro transaxles). If something in the mechanism is causing extra friction on the ram, the machine might be seeing this as splitting resistance and kicking down to the lower volume/higher pressure mode prematurely. There was no adjustment for this on the one I used but there might be on yours (hopefully)!

Edited 12 hours ago by Handy Don

[ebinmaine 78,162]

7 minutes ago, Handy Don said:

Lots to learn, for sure.

 

Is the single-split cutter available? Would swapping be difficult for when you might want it?

 

Always here. The cross plate just drops down over the single cutter. Super easy.  

 

 

7 minutes ago, Handy Don said:

 

Given that the extend and retract cylinder volumes differ, are the speeds in the two directions different (apart from the intended two-speed business)? This is just me being curious .

 

I haven't timed the actions yet. 

Oddly, the power seems stronger in the reverse direction. 

 

7 minutes ago, Handy Don said:

 

On the one auto-dual-speed splitter I’ve used, the “kick down” was integrated into the hydro pump with a pressure-against-a-spring valve (conceptually similar to the acceleration valves in Eaton and Sunstrand hydro transaxles). If something in the mechanism is causing extra friction on the ram, the machine might be seeing this as splitting resistance and kicking down to the lower volume/higher pressure mode prematurely. 

 

We'll check that!!

 

 

[Ed Kennell 45,634]

1 hour ago, ebinmaine said:

Oddly, the power seems stronger in the reverse direction. 

I'm guessing one direction has full piston area and the other has piston - shaft area.     Same pressure just different areas.

[ebinmaine 78,162]

2 minutes ago, Ed Kennell said:

I'm guessing one direction has full piston area and the other has piston - shaft area.     Same pressure just different areas.

 

Agreed. Just seems bass-ackwards that the piston returning inward would be the stronger side. 

That said, we don't have full capacity in either direction yet so it certainly could change.  

 

 

 

[Ed Kennell 45,634]

26 minutes ago, ebinmaine said:

piston returning inward would be the stronger side.

Yep, given the pressure and flow is equal on both sides of the piston, this would certainly be the stroke with the larger area, larger force, and slower movement in play.

[ebinmaine 78,162]

Just now, Ed Kennell said:

Yep, given the pressure and flow is equal on both sides of the piston, this would certainly be the stroke with the larger area, larger force, and slower movement in play.

 

 

I gotcha. More fluid is pushing on the whole face of the piston.  

[8ntruck 8,745]

 Assuming the same volume from the pump going both ways, the return stroke should be quicker than the extend stroke, as the cylinder rod is filling some of the volume of the cylinder as it retracts - not as much oil needed.

[jsoluna 481]

If it seems to be running in the low flow/high pressure circuit only, there may be an external relief adjustment (not the main system pressure relief at the valve).  You would see something on the pump body externally.

 

Most of the pumps I have seen are fixed valving for the stage operation.

 

The speed difference in the stages of the pump operation are quite noticeable, and if you say it returned to normal operation after you relieve the system flow, I'm wondering if you have a sticky valve in the pump.

 

Of course, the speed and force of the actions in either direction will be different due to the volumetric differences as others have noted.  That is entirely normal.  Losing one stage of the pump is not.

Edited 3 hours ago by jsoluna

[Ed Kennell 45,634]

More thoughts assuming the pressure and flow is the same on both sides of the piston.

 

1. the extending stroke generates more force than the retracting stroke

2. the rod is in compression during the extending stroke

3. the rod is more subject to bending when in compression

4. the single stage rod can be nearly as large as the piston as very little force is required to retract the piston

4. the dual stage requires the rod to be much smaller than the piston to generate a working force when retracting.