Today me and two friends went to cut about three cords of wood. I brought a
Husky 345, they brought Stihls. One was a 442 with a 25" bar. We needed it
a couple of times. My Husky started easier than their Stihls, but I suspect
that with a little fiddling with the jets, we could have ironed that out.
We were at 10,425' elev. One of the Stihl owners said they would buy Husky
next. They both had three each.

We cut mostly rounds 16-18" long. We brought them back to my house to
split.

We were considering going back up there in the summer, and making it a two
day event with a campout. We want to bring a splitter, and an ATV to skid
the logs to a central point.

We were discussing how efficient it is to split wood right at the spot where
you fell it. And how it stacks up comparatively in a rack. Say, take
enough rounds to fill up a 4x4x8 frame, then split it and see if the stack
is higher or lower. We all agreed that it would be nice to leave all the
mess in the woods, and that it would be somewhat less handling doing it that
way.

What are the facts?

Steve

On Sep 29, 7:36*pm, "Steve B" wrote:
Today me and two friends went to cut about three cords of wood. *I brought a
Husky 345, they brought Stihls. *One was a 442 with a 25" bar. *We needed it
a couple of times. *My Husky started easier than their Stihls, but I suspect
that with a little fiddling with the jets, we could have ironed that out.
We were at 10,425' elev. *One of the Stihl owners said they would buy Husky
next. *They both had three each.

We cut mostly rounds 16-18" long. *We brought them back to my house to
split.

We were considering going back up there in the summer, and making it a two
day event with a campout. *We want to bring a splitter, and an ATV to skid
the logs to a central point.

We were discussing how efficient it is to split wood right at the spot where
you fell it. *And how it stacks up comparatively in a rack. *Say, take
enough rounds to fill up a 4x4x8 frame, then split it and see if the stack
is higher or lower. *We all agreed that it would be nice to leave all the
mess in the woods, and that it would be somewhat less handling doing it that
way.

What are the facts?

Steve

The facts are that the smaller you split it, the bigger the stack
gets. You cannot put split wood into a smaller space than mother
nature put the unsplit wood.

Rule of thumb is that split to the usual stove size, the stack will
grow about 10%.

As to efficiency? Depends on your time you want to invest. I prefer
bringing them home in the biggest chunks I can load and do the
splitting at home at my leisure. Split on cite, you cut, split, load
and are there until all jobs are finished. Time I fall, trim brush
and load I am too pooped any more to also split it.

Harry K

On Sep 29, 9:36*pm, "Steve B" wrote:
Today me and two friends went to cut about three cords of wood. *I brought a
Husky 345, they brought Stihls. *One was a 442 with a 25" bar. *We needed it
a couple of times. *My Husky started easier than their Stihls, but I suspect
that with a little fiddling with the jets, we could have ironed that out.
We were at 10,425' elev. *One of the Stihl owners said they would buy Husky
next. *They both had three each.

We cut mostly rounds 16-18" long. *We brought them back to my house to
split.

We were considering going back up there in the summer, and making it a two
day event with a campout. *We want to bring a splitter, and an ATV to skid
the logs to a central point.

We were discussing how efficient it is to split wood right at the spot where
you fell it. *And how it stacks up comparatively in a rack. *Say, take
enough rounds to fill up a 4x4x8 frame, then split it and see if the stack
is higher or lower. *We all agreed that it would be nice to leave all the
mess in the woods, and that it would be somewhat less handling doing it that
way.

What are the facts?

Steve

It is hard to get split wood to stack as closely as rounds, if the
rounds are really fairly round without stubs sticking out. If wood
always split really cleanly, it would be close to a tie, but if there
are little burrs sticking out of the splits, they just don't stack as
well.

On Sep 29, 7:36*pm, "Steve B" wrote:
Today me and two friends went to cut about three cords of wood. *I brought a
Husky 345, they brought Stihls. *One was a 442 with a 25" bar. *We needed it
a couple of times. *My Husky started easier than their Stihls, but I suspect
that with a little fiddling with the jets, we could have ironed that out.
We were at 10,425' elev. *One of the Stihl owners said they would buy Husky
next. *They both had three each.

We cut mostly rounds 16-18" long. *We brought them back to my house to
split.

We were considering going back up there in the summer, and making it a two
day event with a campout. *We want to bring a splitter, and an ATV to skid
the logs to a central point.

We were discussing how efficient it is to split wood right at the spot where
you fell it. *And how it stacks up comparatively in a rack. *Say, take
enough rounds to fill up a 4x4x8 frame, then split it and see if the stack
is higher or lower. *We all agreed that it would be nice to leave all the
mess in the woods, and that it would be somewhat less handling doing it that
way.

What are the facts?

Steve

If the rounds (logs) are fairly straight & w/o stub limbs, they will
stack at higher density than split wood.

http://nuke.biomasstradecentres.eu/P...OOK_BTC_EN.pdf

take at look on pages 11 & 12

If I'm reading the information correctly, it looks like split wood
stacks at ~70% the density of "rounds".
So split wood would take up 40% more room.

Whether leaving the mess in woods is worth the extra volume required
to transport the same amount of rounds, that determination is up to
you.

cheers
Bob

"Steve B" wrote in message
.. .
Today me and two friends went to cut about three cords of wood. I brought
a Husky 345, they brought Stihls. One was a 442 with a 25" bar. We
needed it a couple of times. My Husky started easier than their Stihls,
but I suspect that with a little fiddling with the jets, we could have
ironed that out. We were at 10,425' elev. One of the Stihl owners said
they would buy Husky next. They both had three each.

We cut mostly rounds 16-18" long. We brought them back to my house to
split.

We were considering going back up there in the summer, and making it a two
day event with a campout. We want to bring a splitter, and an ATV to skid
the logs to a central point.

We were discussing how efficient it is to split wood right at the spot
where you fell it. And how it stacks up comparatively in a rack. Say,
take enough rounds to fill up a 4x4x8 frame, then split it and see if the
stack is higher or lower. We all agreed that it would be nice to leave
all the mess in the woods, and that it would be somewhat less handling
doing it that way.

What are the facts?

Steve


I don't know of anyone that splits on site. The real pros bring logs and
cut to size and split in one operation, but that takes a bigger piece of
equipment.

On Sep 29, 10:36*pm, "Steve B" wrote:
Today me and two friends went to cut about three cords of wood. *I brought a
Husky 345, they brought Stihls. *One was a 442 with a 25" bar. *We needed it
a couple of times. *My Husky started easier than their Stihls, but I suspect
that with a little fiddling with the jets, we could have ironed that out.
We were at 10,425' elev. *One of the Stihl owners said they would buy Husky
next. *They both had three each.

We cut mostly rounds 16-18" long. *We brought them back to my house to
split.

We were considering going back up there in the summer, and making it a two
day event with a campout. *We want to bring a splitter, and an ATV to skid
the logs to a central point.

We were discussing how efficient it is to split wood right at the spot where
you fell it. *And how it stacks up comparatively in a rack. *Say, take
enough rounds to fill up a 4x4x8 frame, then split it and see if the stack
is higher or lower. *We all agreed that it would be nice to leave all the
mess in the woods, and that it would be somewhat less handling doing it that
way.

What are the facts?

Steve

I can see the camping part making it a bit more fun. Leaviing the
residue at location appeals as well.

On 9/29/2011 10:36 PM, Steve B wrote:
[snip]
We were considering going back up there in the summer, and making it a two
day event with a campout. We want to bring a splitter, and an ATV to skid
the logs to a central point.

We were discussing how efficient it is to split wood right at the spot where
you fell it. And how it stacks up comparatively in a rack. Say, take
enough rounds to fill up a 4x4x8 frame, then split it and see if the stack
is higher or lower. We all agreed that it would be nice to leave all the
mess in the woods, and that it would be somewhat less handling doing it that
way.

What are the facts?

Facts:
1. Wood in the round makes a smaller stack than split wood.
2. Wood in the round takes less time for one man to load into a truck
because he's handling fewer pieces.
3. Split wood takes less effort to load into a truck because you're
handling smaller pieces.
4. Two men can load split wood faster than wood in the round: one stands
on the ground and pitches, one stands in the truck to catch and stack.
Two trucks + four men = wood loaded faster than you can believe if you
haven't done it before.

Opinions:
1. If I had an ATV to skid the logs to a central point, I wouldn't split
it where I felled it -- I'd split it at the central point. I think
you're a lot less likely to lose rounds off the skid than splits.
2. Two days camping in the woods with good friends (and presumably good
food and good beer) sounds like a helluva good time to me. Go for it.

"Steve B" wrote:

-snip-

What are the facts?

Chainsaws? Splitters? weenies-- Get one of these for your
Bobcat-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMeb2-TSzNU

No Bobcat? Use this one- [it loads your truck, too]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfnavISaP9c

Personally, back in the day, I liked cutting it just small enough to
throw on the truck, and do the final cutting and rare splitting in the
woodyard. 2 days in the woods would yield enough wood to keep me
busy at odd moments for a couple weeks.

I would end up with a lot of stubs that way- but they went into an
unstacked pile and got used up first.

I've never missed any of that work.

Jim

"Steve B" wrote in message
...
We were discussing how efficient it is to split wood right at the
spot where you fell it. And how it stacks up comparatively in a
rack. Say, take enough rounds to fill up a 4x4x8 frame, then split
it and see if the stack is higher or lower. We all agreed that it
would be nice to leave all the mess in the woods, and that it would
be somewhat less handling doing it that way.

What are the facts?


It is a LOT of work to cut the rounds and load them in the truck
[trailer]...

I prefer to do just that, then I can take my time at home splitting
the wood.

As for the "mess" splitting the wood creates, that is GOOD stuff!
Kindling. I want that stuff and use it to start the fire, then put on
the big pieces.

Also, around here, Stihls are more reliable with starting up each time
than huskys...

On Sep 29, 7:36*pm, "Steve B" wrote:
Today me and two friends went to cut about three cords of wood. *I brought a
Husky 345, they brought Stihls. *One was a 442 with a 25" bar. *We needed it
a couple of times. *My Husky started easier than their Stihls, but I suspect
that with a little fiddling with the jets, we could have ironed that out.
We were at 10,425' elev. *One of the Stihl owners said they would buy Husky
next. *They both had three each.

We cut mostly rounds 16-18" long. *We brought them back to my house to
split.

We were considering going back up there in the summer, and making it a two
day event with a campout. *We want to bring a splitter, and an ATV to skid
the logs to a central point.

We were discussing how efficient it is to split wood right at the spot where
you fell it. *And how it stacks up comparatively in a rack. *Say, take
enough rounds to fill up a 4x4x8 frame, then split it and see if the stack
is higher or lower. *We all agreed that it would be nice to leave all the
mess in the woods, and that it would be somewhat less handling doing it that
way.

What are the facts?

Steve

Weird, This question (split vs rounds) comes at least once/yr on some
forum. This is the first time I have seen evrybody get the answer
right . Usually there is at leat one guy that insists he can stack
the splits tighter but always refuses to do an experiment.

Harry K