Max torque rating for ratchets - coarse tooth vs fine tooth

[jeejay]

The only reason or advantage to coarse threads is they only require 1/2 the turns of a fine thread and they can take abrasion of dings better.

Another variable I noticed when comparing the two was that reversing the lever on finer toothed ones seems to have more of a sweet spot, where I'd have to turn the ratchet more to free the lever from some positions. The coarse toothed ones never lock up as far as what I've compared (they don't have the same leeva eitha). Well, this's one way I don't want the ratchet to be stronger.

 

[JohnDeere1]

Wow this an old thread...but I like old ones to be able to read comments from members past.
Fine tooth is definitely stronger more teeth = more contact area but coarse tooth is not necessarily weak either both can handle a good amount of torque the main advantage of fine tooth is being able to use them in tighter areas in today's crammed engine bays. That's why snap on made the dual 80 think about it snap on used 20-32-36 for many decades if they needed or wanted thier ratchets stronger they would have made fine tooth years ago. They made thier first fine tooth ratchet 70 years ago and dropped it. Snap on coarse tooth are stronger than others but not by design but quality and make up of the steel that's what makes a Snap On tool stronger than the other guys always has that's the whole a lure and reason to buy them not looks.

 

[sarabellum]

Manufacturers do not publish a torque rating, i.e. pound feet, for their ratchets, because a ratchet is not designed to be a torque wrench or a breaker bar. That is no revelation. One could write to the manufacturer for their safety warning as to what pound foot limit not to exceed. The safety limit is something that any reasonable manufacturer/vendor should provide.

 

[M6erfan]

Manufacturers do not publish a torque rating, i.e. pound feet, for their ratchets, because a ratchet is not designed to be a torque wrench or a breaker bar. That is no revelation. One could write to the manufacturer for their safety warning as to what pound foot limit not to exceed. The safety limit is something that any reasonable manufacturer/vendor should provide.

They don't???

 

[SeisMec]

I believe the only problem that ive ever read/heard about is with the 1/4" line stuff. Why? I dunno.

I dunno either. But I think the same number of teeth in a smaller circle means smaller, weaker teeth.

 

[jimmyin3D]

I feel round head ratchets by design are much stronger since the pawls are centered inside the head vs the floating pawls tear drop ratchets have. This is all conjecture so don’t take anything I say as absolute proof.

But my SK/Williams round heads have never skipped teeth vs my many tear drop SO, GW,or others of that style.

 

[The collector]

Damn. Now really regretting buying the F936 clone. I guess I can at least justify it slightly since it was cheaper than the F80. ($30 shipped vs. $55 on ebay new).

That Matco 88 looks like it was rated well - kind of wish I bought the Armstrong version for $45.

I know this is old but those dual 80s were breaking b4 gearwrench ratchets if you watch torture tests online I think maby dealers fix more corse teeth ratchets because people know they are tough and beat on there 50$ ratchets vs the 150$ ratchets... don't think you are breaking the williams or the snap on 80s without a pipe so just grab a breaker bar instead of grabbing a pipe

 

[The collector]

I feel round head ratchets by design are much stronger since the pawls are centered inside the head vs the floating pawls tear drop ratchets have. This is all conjecture so don’t take anything I say as absolute proof.

But my SK/Williams round heads have never skipped teeth vs my many tear drop SO, GW,or others of that style.

Are you talking about the heart spring kind or the old dual pawls?

 

[rcsracing]

Sounds like a good Project Farm video idea.

 

[finn]

Just watched a year old AVE YouTube video where he destroyed about six or so half inch fine tooth ratchets.


Almost without exception, the primary mode of failure was the anvil shearing off, not the tooth mechanism failing.