Cons
-Stupid beam design. Not only is it unnecessary, but it's bulky which seems to counter the benefits of the low swing arc.
As much as I love your avatar, I have to completely and totally disagree with you. Worked metals, which includes things like rolling, shot peening, and FORGING, have toughness profiles that differ through the thickness, where the surface is tougher than the center. That hole in the middle exposes more surface to the forging dies, thus increasing the wrench's toughness.
A conventional design absolutely will have stress concentrations where the beam meets the end. They may not fail on you, or they may, who knows. But there is no question, whatsoever, that it is a superior design.
Those are my professional opinions as an engineer with a couple of degrees in Materials Engineering (my undergrad having included a concentration in metallurgy), though I am not currently practicing in that field.
My "real world," or non-professional opinion......what on Earth does mass have to do with swing arc? If you are in a tight spot where you can't move the wrench, I don't care if you have a wrench made of carbon fiber or Spectra, it won't help. Conversely, if you have a very low swing arc, how would a wrench even made of tungsten (more dense than lead) negate the advantage of being able to swing hte wrench enough for the next teeth to engage? Besides, does it weigh more than a conventional wrench of similar size and function (i.e. a same size wrench of similar length with a ratcheting end)? According to SK, one of the reasons for the holes in the middle was to get the mass down to where it would otherwise be.
Additionally, you like the fact that it is long!? Wha? Lessie here........longer wrenches weigh more, but that's okay, you like that. But it is an unconventional design which LOOKS heavier, even though it is not (per claim by manufacturer). But that is bad.
Not directed at you, but more comments over the past 4-5 months, in general. I really don't get the hate for this aspect of the design. Functionally, it is a superior design, period. It is not stupid, but rather the exact opposite.
As for the non-reversible........well, if you look at the design of the thing, it does not appear to be that that is an option. Reversible ones have a single engagement pawl that is changed with the lever. This one has 3 pairs of pawls taking up the entire perimeter of the head, each pair working in conjunction with the one directly across the wrench from it. Now, I've never designed tools, but I'm having a hard time seeing how you make that reversible. So making it reversible would eliminate one of, if not the, biggest point of the wrench. Slamming it for that is like slamming a ratchet for not being a wrench, or slamming a 27mm wrench for weighing more than a 10mm wrench.
A 12 point would be easier to line up, but again, what is SK trying to design for? One aspect is a wrench tough enough to break loose a fastener without failing. A 12 point is going to be less likely to be able to do that for you.
Anyway, every design of nearly everything out there, not just tool related, but in general, is a result of compromise. SK went with what they felt would address the more important issues to its potential customers. Time will tell if they are right. But the criticisms lodged at them are analogous to criticizing a desk top computer for not being portable, or citicizing a smart phone for not having a full size keyboard.
