3/8" flex head ratchets, what's a stronger design?

ThePostman · Oct 20, 2020

I'm really looking for the daily users/pros on this. So snapon, matco, cornwell, and just about everyone else have the y or u shaped yoke for the head of the ratchet where the bolt goes through. Proto/mac is just the opposite where the ratchet head serves as the yoke for the handle. Any experience on the durability of the proto/mac vs everyone else at the flex point? I ask because I just watched another snapon flex 3/8 break today, and I seem to be the only one that doesn't buy just what's on the truck.....

2ndGearRubber · Oct 21, 2020

Snap on is like that now, the head of the rather holds the U shaped part, the handle is just a stick. I believe this is more so a function of keeping the head tight than outright strength.

Everything breaks, even the big boys.

seber · Oct 21, 2020

It's the same joint either way. Stresses are the same just reversed. Strength and durability are therefor the same. If you are worried about it, then ease of warranty is more important.

Mr_B · Oct 21, 2020

I've had good results with matco and mac .
got mac as my mac guy is proper decent guy for repairs .
had good luck with extending facom and ez-red too .

lardy1 · Oct 21, 2020

Does the joint location in reference to the drive tang have any bearing? I've noticed that the 72 tooth Carlyle (and probably the associated other rebrands) flex joint is closer than any of my others. I can see closer as a benefit in close quarters, but also wondered if it had any effect on strength.

Not my intention to derail this thread.

ThePostman · Oct 21, 2020

To clarify:
This is the current snapon offering

And most common design

And here is the proto/mac

SeisMec · Oct 21, 2020

lardy1 said:
Does the joint location ... (have) any effect on strength.

The closer the joint is to the drive anvil, the more stress it's under. Imagine 100 ft lbs of torque delivered to a fastener. If the joint is 1" from the anvil's center it's subjected to 1,200 lbs of force. If the joint were 2" from the anvils center it would be subjected to 600 lbs of force.

FWIW I think that swivel heads joints are less likely to break - the ear pins of the head are much heavier than the pins in flex heads.

Has anyone here ever seen a swivel head with a broken joint either IRL or even in a picture?

Of course swivel heads are bulkier and won't fit some places that a flex head would.

Rarified27 · Oct 21, 2020

Maybe not stronger, but the female type handles lend themselves to lower production costs when you consider they can hold ratchet or breaker bar heads.

Skin · Oct 21, 2020

2ndGearRubber said:
Snap on is like that now, the head of the rather holds the U shaped part, the handle is just a stick. I believe this is more so a function of keeping the head tight than outright strength.

Everything breaks, even the big boys.

It's a strength thing. It allows for much thicker "forks" which has generally been the failure point on a flex head. The only ratchet Snap-on did it to is the extra long 3/8".

BlakeTheCarGuy · Oct 21, 2020

I love my Matco locking flex head but after awhile it had gotten really weak so my dealer tightens it for me about every 6 months or so. The Snap-on are good except I haven’t been a fan since when they redone the design of the flex head I feel it made it weaker. Now sometimes I use my coworkers Mac ratchet I like that thing. As for Proto I haven’t used on of their ratchets so can’t speak on those.

Sent from my iPhone using Garage Journal

visionguru · Oct 21, 2020

Here are my 3/8" long and extra long.

The newer Snap On should be stronger than older version, the "U" seems beefier. I like the older design better.

SeisMec · Oct 21, 2020

Skin said:
It allows for much thicker "forks"

If 'thicker' means a greater distance between the outer edge of each fork tang, I can't picture how fork thickness could be determined by which part the fork is formed on.

If 'thicker' means the height of the side the fork with the visible pin hole, isn't fork thickness going to be determined by the thickness of the head - regardless of which part the fork is formed on?

Packard V8 · Oct 21, 2020

3/8" flex head ratchets, what's a stronger design? I'm really looking for the daily users/pros on this.

Interesting the way perceptions change. Back when, we knew flex-heads were inherently weaker and only reached for them when a fixed head absolutely wouldn't git 'er done.

Today, it seems guys want to use the flex-head for everything; it's going to wear and fail soon under daily use.

jack vines

Wandering even further off topic, I checked this with the Snap-on guy. Way back when, 1/2"drive was the standard for automotive work and 3/8" was uncommon. Today, most techs use 3/8" and 1/4" for breaking rusted/frozen fasteners. Sometimes, it works, sometimes the tool breaks.

The old Snap-on guy said techs used to be embarrassed about breaking a tool. By the time he retired, he was replacing chrome 3/8" sockets broken because they were used daily on air impacts. Some of the younger techs just seemed to enjoy abusing their tools.

jv

ThePostman · Oct 21, 2020

Packard V8 said:
Interesting the way perceptions change. Back when, we knew flex-heads were inherently weaker and only reached for them when a fixed head absolutely wouldn't git 'er done.

Today, it seems guys want to use the flex-head for everything; it's going to wear and fail soon under daily use.

jack vines

Wandering even further off topic, I checked this with the Snap-on guy. Way back when, 1/2"drive was the standard for automotive work and 3/8" was uncommon. Today, most techs use 3/8" and 1/4" for breaking rusted/frozen fasteners. Sometimes, it works, sometimes the tool breaks.

The old Snap-on guy said techs used to be embarrassed about breaking a tool. By the time he retired, he was replacing chrome 3/8" sockets broken because they were used daily on air impacts. Some of the younger techs just seemed to enjoy abusing their tools.

jv

The reason they are reached for first is because the way things are put together now. For example working blindly to remove an intake manifold so you can get to the plugs on bank 2. And then to get the plugs out you might need dthat flex head as well. It's the most useful tool for a daily automotive tech to me.

Packard V8 · Oct 21, 2020

ThePostman said:
The reason they are reached for first is because the way things are put together now. For example working blindly to remove an intake manifold so you can get to the plugs on bank 2. And then to get the plugs out you might need dthat flex head as well. It's the most useful tool for a daily automotive tech to me.

Agree, used when needed to get to top-end small diameter new car fasteners, one isn't likely to overstress a flex-head. But just the other day I watched one being used to break loose rusty caliper bolts; absolutely no need for a flex-head in that application. One suspects it will be coming back for exchange soon.

jack vines

Wakefield · Oct 21, 2020

visionguru said:
Here are my 3/8" long and extra long.

The newer Snap On should be stronger than older version, the "U" seems beefier. I like the older design better.

Bottom one looks stronger to me-does the joint measure wider? (comparing 3/8" drive joints)

Now that I think about it that handle design looks like that of their long SN 36(?) breaker bar in 1/2" drive whose joint I think is wider than their traditional breaker bar. (in the 1/2" drives)

jpaw · Oct 21, 2020

Packard V8 said:
Agree, used when needed to get to top-end small diameter new car fasteners, one isn't likely to overstress a flex-head. But just the other day I watched one being used to break loose rusty caliper bolts; absolutely no need for a flex-head in that application. One suspects it will be coming back for exchange soon.

jack vines

It's funny I've ask multiple tool trucks about a 3/8 breaker bar and not one of them carry one on the truck.
I know I can order one but I just keep on breaking the ratchet and have it rebuilt. It kills me how easy it is to make these new ratchets slip.

Skin · Oct 21, 2020

SeisMec said:
If 'thicker' means a greater distance between the outer edge of each fork tang, I can't picture how fork thickness could be determined by which part the fork is formed on.

If 'thicker' means the height of the side the fork with the visible pin hole, isn't fork thickness going to be determined by the thickness of the head - regardless of which part the fork is formed on?

The heads appear to be physically wider at the joint connection. If you look a the MAC or Snap-on they certainly appear much beefier. At a minimum they arent rounded so even if they were all together the same maximum thickness there is more material to the fork.

From the few tests i've seen the reversed design shears the drive anvil in any drive size. Generally speaking, with the standard design, the forks usually spread before that happens, especially on 3/8". I'm quite certain this is what Snap-on found with their own testing which is why the FLLF is made that way. They wouldnt of invested in the manufacturing of a new head if that wasnt the case.

HenryAZ · Oct 22, 2020

I have this type of flex head ratchet, really called a swivel head, from Snap-on. How does this compare with the flex-head ratchets being discussed here? More or less useful? Sturdier or less so?

Fedwrench · Oct 22, 2020

I can't remember breaking a flex head ratchet at forked handle end. :dunno:

I've managed to break a 1/2 drive breaker bar but that's another thread.

I have several of the Mac Axis flex head ratchets and the reverse fork on ratchet head design does seem to offer less play and more strength to me.

However, what I feel is important in flex head ratchet design, is to have the least possible amount of space between the handle and the edges of the ratchet head. I think this is where the MAC/Proto design excels. There's minimal spacing between the handle and the ratchet head ears. Any gap between the handle and ratchet head produces a weak spot for movement. :beer:

Lucid Moments · Oct 22, 2020

Packard V8 said:
Interesting the way perceptions change. Back when, we knew flex-heads were inherently weaker and only reached for them when a fixed head absolutely wouldn't git 'er done.

Today, it seems guys want to use the flex-head for everything; it's going to wear and fail soon under daily use.

jack vines

Wandering even further off topic, I checked this with the Snap-on guy. Way back when, 1/2"drive was the standard for automotive work and 3/8" was uncommon. Today, most techs use 3/8" and 1/4" for breaking rusted/frozen fasteners. Sometimes, it works, sometimes the tool breaks.

The old Snap-on guy said techs used to be embarrassed about breaking a tool. By the time he retired, he was replacing chrome 3/8" sockets broken because they were used daily on air impacts. Some of the younger techs just seemed to enjoy abusing their tools.

jv

It is interesting you say that. The man that I learned a lot from was an older mechanic, started work in the late 50's and he used to fuss at me some for using a larger tool than was necessary. Got me in the habit of reaching for a 1/4" ratchet first unless it was obvious I needed bigger.

SeisMec · Oct 22, 2020

Attempting to focus on "stronger conceptual design" as opposed to precise implementation of design. Looking at visonguru's picture of two Snap-on implementations -

While the arms of the fork-on-head are heavier than the arms of the fork-on-handle, there is no intrinsic reason why the fork-on-handle could not have been made equally heavy.

If the full length of the tang fits very tightly in the fork (the joint is tight), the fork will absorb most of the strain. If the arms of the fork become spread even a little, a great deal of the force is transferred to the relatively tiny hinge pin. Eventually the hinge pin breaks and then the fork arms either break or become grossly spread.

Can't tell from the picture, but my impression is that the pin of newer, fork-on-head design also functions as a tensioning-screw to help keep the joint tight. (Please correct me that's wrong.) When I've encountered a similar tensioning-screw/pin in breaker bar heads, due to the short, thick arms of the fork, a great deal of torque needs to be applied to the tensioning-screw/pin to tighten the joint to any appreciable degree.

Looking at HenryAZ's picture of a Snap-on swivel head

It requires much, much less torque on the tensioning screw of this design to greatly change tightness of the joint. With just a short arm hex key and my thumb and two fingers, I can tight the joint to the point where a 7/8" deep socket and 12" extension held horizontally doesn't cause movement in the joint.

Nobody that I know of makes one, but if you could find a well implemented, fork-on-handle designed flex-head where the handle was split - like the handle of swivel head - where the pivot pin and the joint tensioning screw were separate components, then you'd have a flex-head where the flex-joint would essentially last forever -always easily tightened up. Just like the joint of even the cheapest swivel heads.

Under_Pressure · Oct 22, 2020

Not sure about a flex ratchet being an inherently bad choice for high stress applications. Most of us would reach for a non-ratcheting, flex head breaker bar when we needed the ultimate in heavy duty handle-bending strength (because we assume the ratcheting mechanism is the weak point vs. a flex joint- which may not be a good assumption with modern ratchet designs). As others have noted, this essentially has the same joint as a flex head ratchet. Except with a breaker bar, the joint is located approximately directly above the fastener, while a flex ratchet has it some distance "down the handle." When you consider that a ratchet is a cantilever beam loaded at one end, and that the bending moment transitions from a maximum at the fixed end (i.e. the fastener) to zero at the free end (where the load is applied), this means that for an equivalent load applied at an equivalent distance (or a proportionately reduced/increased load at an increased/reduced distance), the flex joint in a ratchet is less stressed than a breaker bar.

So if you would consider a non-flex head ratchet of the same design and a breaker bar of the same flex joint design suitable for a given application, then logically a flex head ratchet should be at least as well suited.

And while it is true that most breaker bars have the traditional "forked handle/single ear drive" design, my 24" 1/2" bar and 48" 3/4" bar both have the opposite configuration- a handle with the single ear and the drive end made from a relatively large round piece of stock with a slot in the center to accept the handle.

Ralf11 · Oct 22, 2020

Design is one thing, but the alloy and how it's formed (forged) are also important.

Under_Pressure · Oct 22, 2020

I should add, though, that what I posted covers only the joint itself. What happens between the joint and the fastener (that is, how the joint is connected to the head) is a factor to consider, and probably the weak point of many designs. A breaker bar has the advantage of bending load going directly into the handle at the joint, while the ratchet experiences bending on both sides of the joint. If you look at the two Snap-On designs above in that light, you can see why the bottom one is stronger. At the flex joint itself? There shouldn't be much of a difference. The ears and pins will see more or less the same stress. However, consider the attachment between the joint and the head as another, small cantilever beam. It is seeing maximum bending stress where it attaches to the head. What is the best way to make a structural element resist bending? Move the cross sectional area away from the neutral axis. Putting the fork on the ratchet head allows you to do that, as well as make a much smoother transition into the ratchet body. The piece attaching the head to the handle on the top ratchet is like a piece of solid square bar; on the bottom ratchet, is more like a wide flange beam (as long as the joint is tight!), and should be much stronger in bending.

So I still maintain that flex joints themselves don't inherently disqualify a ratchet from serious bolt-busting use. But I qualify that by noting the connection between the handle and ratchet head is extremely important and can quickly become a weak link.

Wakefield · Oct 22, 2020

SeisMec said:
Attempting to focus on "stronger conceptual design" as opposed to precise implementation of design. Looking at visonguru's picture of two Snap-on implementations -

While the arms of the fork-on-head are heavier than the arms of the fork-on-handle, there is no intrinsic reason why the fork-on-handle could not have been made equally heavy.

If the full length of the tang fits very tightly in the fork (the joint is tight), the fork will absorb most of the strain. If the arms of the fork become spread even a little, a great deal of the force is transferred to the relatively tiny hinge pin. Eventually the hinge pin breaks and then the fork arms either break or become grossly spread.

Can't tell from the picture, but my impression is that the pin of newer, fork-on-head design also functions as a tensioning-screw to help keep the joint tight. (Please correct me that's wrong.) When I've encountered a similar tensioning-screw/pin in breaker bar heads, due to the short, thick arms of the fork, a great deal of torque needs to be applied to the tensioning-screw/pin to tighten the joint to any appreciable degree.

Looking at HenryAZ's picture of a Snap-on swivel head

It requires much, much less torque on the tensioning screw of this design to greatly change tightness of the joint. With just a short arm hex key and my thumb and two fingers, I can tight the joint to the point where a 7/8" deep socket and 12" extension held horizontally doesn't cause movement in the joint.

Nobody that I know of makes one, but if you could find a well implemented, fork-on-handle designed flex-head where the handle was split - like the handle of swivel head - where the pivot pin and the joint tensioning screw were separate components, then you'd have a flex-head where the flex-joint would essentially last forever -always easily tightened up. Just like the joint of even the cheapest swivel heads.

I think I remember a tool truck guy saying to keep that bolt/screw tight (replaced the pin in the traditional breaker bar flex joint redesign) and that the screw is not supposed to control the "friction" in the flex action (it is an axle bolt that seats home hard at a step where the threads end)
at least the way Snap On implemented it-Harbor Freight or Titian or Duralast might be different

Wakefield · Oct 22, 2020

In some of those joints there is a spring,spring washer or split washer compressed inside the joint that provides friction-located in a countersink which might be in the side of the drivepiece part that carries the square drive/anvil or on the inside surface of one of the ears

FuzzyTiger · Oct 23, 2020

Everything breaks given enough force but there's also consideration for how it breaks and what breaks. From a warranty perspective what is more expensive for them to deal with? Replacing a handle with bent forks or replacing a ratchet head? I suspect the head which is why I've generally seen well designed ratchets fail by sheering the anvil or the handle. If the teeth strip it's possible the internal casing will be damaged and if the head sheers then the most complicated and expensive part of the tool needs replacement.

Further to that - any amount of flex in the forks will cause a substantial amount of force to be transmitted to the pin but the forks generally bend rather than sheering like the anvil might. Obviously there's a design decision there as well - if the handle was made of hardened tool steel, it would flex less but be more brittle, be more expensive and very possibly injure the user upon breaking.

In fact looking at the picture of the two ratchets posted above, the bottom design seems a lot beefier at the joint but the mating surfaces don't seem as flat to each other. It almost seems like there's even a bit of a radius at key points where a lot of the force would concentrate. I wonder if they weren't trying to move the failure point from the handle and the head to the pin.

richfinn · Oct 23, 2020

jpaw said:
It's funny I've ask multiple tool trucks about a 3/8 breaker bar and not one of them carry one on the truck.
I know I can order one but I just keep on breaking the ratchet and have it rebuilt. It kills me how easy it is to make these new ratchets slip.

I'm a big fan of the 3/8 Snap-On breaker bar, it's dimensions are the best I've found. Just gives you that extra bit of room sometimes in tight quarters and saves your expensive ratchets. Dont use it a lot but nice to have when required

FuzzyTiger · Oct 23, 2020

3/8 Breaker Bar (it's just as nice in person)

A non leather handle version that's longer is also available but how could you want anything but the leather version?

SeisMec · Oct 23, 2020

FWIW and hopefully as a clarification; here are a couple pictures that show where force would be exerted (blue arrows) on the forks when breaking a right hand threaded fitting loose. The yellow bar indicates where you should imagine the switch having been set. Pretend that the guts of all the heads are made from UNBREAKIUM.

I'd intended some additional comments but something came and I have to run. Maybe later.

richfinn · Oct 23, 2020

FuzzyTiger said:
3/8 Breaker Bar (it's just as nice in person)

A non leather handle version that's longer is also available but how could you want anything but the leather version?

I would love one, but alas I work outdoors in England on a lot of Diesel cars, I tend to go for metal handles wherever possible. The soft grips dont last long when you have to hose your tools down with WD40 every week to stop them rusting

I just couldn't live with myself if I scuffed the leather

Mr_B · Oct 23, 2020

any decent chunky effort clevis standard or reverse will be better than the 3/8 square anvil .
Most with issues was really thin forks and poor pin quality and fitment .

Wakefield · Oct 23, 2020

FuzzyTiger said:
Everything breaks given enough force but there's also consideration for how it breaks and what breaks. From a warranty perspective what is more expensive for them to deal with? Replacing a handle with bent forks or replacing a ratchet head? I suspect the head which is why I've generally seen well designed ratchets fail by sheering the anvil or the handle. If the teeth strip it's possible the internal casing will be damaged and if the head sheers then the most complicated and expensive part of the tool needs replacement.

Further to that - any amount of flex in the forks will cause a substantial amount of force to be transmitted to the pin but the forks generally bend rather than sheering like the anvil might. Obviously there's a design decision there as well - if the handle was made of hardened tool steel, it would flex less but be more brittle, be more expensive and very possibly injure the user upon breaking.

In fact looking at the picture of the two ratchets posted above, the bottom design seems a lot beefier at the joint but the mating surfaces don't seem as flat to each other. It almost seems like there's even a bit of a radius at key points where a lot of the force would concentrate. I wonder if they weren't trying to move the failure point from the handle and the head to the pin.

Trouble I believe is that if the pin or axle bolt (whichever it has) shears or fails completely the resulting movement under load takes out the fork ears

Wakefield · Oct 23, 2020

richfinn said:
I would love one, but alas I work outdoors in England on a lot of Diesel cars, I tend to go for metal handles wherever possible. The soft grips dont last long when you have to hose your tools down with WD40 every week to stop them rusting

I just couldn't live with myself if I scuffed the leather

almost too pretty to use (Nepros 90 tooth ratchet too)

FuzzyTiger · Oct 23, 2020

richfinn said:
I would love one, but alas I work outdoors in England on a lot of Diesel cars, I tend to go for metal handles wherever possible. The soft grips dont last long when you have to hose your tools down with WD40 every week to stop them rusting

I just couldn't live with myself if I scuffed the leather

There's the metal handle one for about $100 shipped... Kind of steep for a breaker bar but it's probably the most thoughtfully designed breaker bar you'll ever hold.

FuzzyTiger · Oct 23, 2020

Wakefield said:
almost too pretty to use (Nepros 90 tooth ratchet too)

Almost. But I'm starting to appreciating using them. I use them for interior work where they won't get damaged or dirty or in situations where nothing else could come close to fitting... Surprisingly I keep finding situations where nothing else I have or have seen would have worked.

richfinn · Oct 23, 2020

FuzzyTiger said:
There's the metal handle one for about $100 shipped... Kind of steep for a breaker bar but it's probably the most thoughtfully designed breaker bar you'll ever hold.

I will stick with the Snap-On, until I win the lottery

FuzzyTiger · Oct 24, 2020

richfinn said:
I will stick with the Snap-On, until I win the lottery

Well that's a phrase no one has ever mentioned uttered before!

richfinn · Oct 24, 2020

FuzzyTiger said:
Well that's a phrase no one has ever mentioned uttered before!

You heard it here on GJ first

3/8" flex head ratchets, what's a stronger design?

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

ALLIANCE MEMBER

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

MEMBER EMERITUS

ALLIANCE MEMBER

Well-known member

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member