Programmatic Comparison · Engineering Brief
ARJES Impaktor 1250 E vs Tana Shark 4400 — 500 kW electric vs 400 kW diesel, 480k vs 675k EUR energy cost, twin-shaft self-cleaning.
| Spec | ARJES Impaktor 1250 E | TANA Shark 4400 |
|---|---|---|
| Drive concept | Twin-shaft asynchronous, independent hydrostatic / electric VFD per shaft | |
| Prime mover | Dual 335 HP asynchronous electric motors with VFD | |
| Drive power (kW) | 500 | |
| Operating weight (kg) | 35,000 – 40,000 | |
| Transport width (m) | 2.55 (standard lowboy) | |
| Energy cost over 10,000 h (USD) | 480,000 (429 HP·h avg ≡ 429 HP·h avg × 10,000 h × $0.162/kW·h = €480,000) | |
| Energy cost delta (USD) | – 195,000 | |
| Rebar / wire wrapping behaviour | Asynchronous dual-shaft — shears wire, self-cleans, no wrapping | |
| Tramp metal (rail / I-beam) response | Independent reverse per shaft, hydraulic damping absorbs peak | |
| Output fraction control | Cassette swap (sync ↔ async mode via gearbox on Impaktor 1000) | |
| Cutting unit service (hrs) | 4 – 6 (quick-change cassette) |
| Material | ARJES Impaktor 1250 E | TANA Shark 4400 |
|---|---|---|
| C&D waste / reinforced concrete | 88-132 ST/h | 66-99 ST/h (counter-screen deforms on rebar) |
| RDF / SRF fuel output | 22-33 ST/h (coarse primary) | 28-44 ST/h (precise fraction — TANA strength) |
| Waste wood / biomass | 44-66 ST/h | 44-66 ST/h |
| OTR / truck tires | 17-28 ST/h (steel cord liberated, no wrapping) | 9-17 ST/h (wire wraps shaft, manual torch cleanup) |
| Reinforced concrete (rebar ≥ 25 mm) | On-demand shred (async anti-wrap, independent reverse) | Not recommended (counter-knife fracture, planetary gear shear risk) |
Gate fees, landfill taxes, and electricity prices swing the verdict by ±30%. Run the live TCO model for your region to see real payback.
Both are heavy-class shredders, but in fundamentally different drive and shaft architectures. The Impaktor 1250 E is a 500 kW twin-shaft asynchronous electric flagship with VFD soft-start; the TANA Shark 4400 is a 400 kW single-shaft diesel with adjustable counter-screen for RDF fraction control. They are commonly shortlisted together for C&D, RDF, and waste-wood lines where energy cost and rebar tolerance are deciding factors.
At 0.15 EUR/kW·h industrial electricity and 1.50 EUR/litre diesel: the Impaktor 1250 E draws 320 kW·h avg (Average Operating Draw under defined load baseline; 500 kW Installed Peak Capacity), costing 480,000 EUR over 10,000 h. The TANA Shark 4400 burns 45 l/h, costing 675,000 EUR. The 195,000 EUR energy delta (≈30%) is compounded by zero DPF/SCR, oil, filter, and AdBlue service on the electric machine.
A single-shaft rotor with a stationary counter-knife acts as a spool for wire and rebar mesh — the material wraps around the shaft, extrudes Hardox side seals, and invades bearing journals. On a tramp metal drop (rail, I-beam) the rotor jams against the counter-knife and the full kinetic load shears planetary gear teeth or bursts the hydraulic motor. The ARJES asynchronous twin-shaft geometry shears the wire via differential speed and self-cleans via counter-rotation, with independent per-shaft reverse preventing gear overload.
Need a detailed TCO model for your facility and feedstock mix?
AXE Machinery d.o.o. is an independent authorized dealer of ARJES recycling machinery. AXE Machinery d.o.o. is NOT affiliated with, endorsed by, sponsored by, or in any way officially connected with Doppstadt GmbH, Hammel GmbH, Lindner-Recyclingtech GmbH, Terex Corporation, Sandvik AB, Metso Outotec, Morbark LLC, or any other manufacturer referenced in this comparative analysis. All third-party company names, product names, and trademarks are the property of their respective owners and are used solely for technical comparison and identification purposes under the fair-use doctrine.
All third-party trademarks, service marks, and trade names referenced on this platform — including but not limited to Doppstadt®, Hammel®, Lindner®, Terex®, Sandvik®, Metso®, Morbark®, Komptech®, UNTHA®, TANA®, and Pronar® — are the property of their respective owners. References to these marks are made solely for technical comparison, identification, and commentary purposes under the fair-use doctrine. Such references do not imply endorsement, sponsorship, affiliation, or partnership. AXE Machinery d.o.o. respects all intellectual property rights and will promptly address any concerns raised by trademark holders.
All performance metrics (KTQ uptime, fuel burn, throughput, torque, clog-rate) are derived from controlled test conditions documented per AXE internal protocol registry. Each metric is cross-referenced to a methodology ID, applicable ISO/ASTM/DIN standard, test date, and verifier identity. Test conditions include specified feedstock (e.g. concrete B25-B45 with rebar ≤32 mm), ambient temperature, operator profile, and observation window. Actual field performance may differ; contact AXE Machinery d.o.o. for a region-specific TCO analysis tailored to your operational profile.
Per Google's E-E-A-T (Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, Trustworthiness) guidelines, every quantitative claim on this platform is traceable to a primary source. Click any ℹ badge next to a metric to view: methodology ID, ISO/ASTM standard reference, test protocol revision, controlled test conditions, ISO-8601 test date, verifier identity, and verification status (self-verified / third-party / pending).
