Wamsutta
Well-known member
Did they change the grip handle on the FH100 to make it bigger? It looks out of proportion compared to the rest of the ratchet.
FH80 Vs. FH100
- Thread starter Wamsutta
- Start date
82355
Well-known member
Gross!
Martin
Martin
I agree, that thing is ugly, the handle design & the retroish style font used on the head. What's the story with that? And they went back to using screws through the head screwing into the cover plate? Changed the look of the selector switch after so long.... because Icon copied them? Sorry to say but the appearance reminds me of HF. Lol
But whatever, I won't be buying one anyway. I still use my 36T SO ratches more than my F80.
But whatever, I won't be buying one anyway. I still use my 36T SO ratches more than my F80.
Looks more like Icon.
d.mcfarland
Well-known member
Maybe they found out a shorter length ratchet ends up almost forcing someone to buy a longer one afterwards?
Shorter one cost less to produce, and leads to higher sales - win / win?
Shorter one cost less to produce, and leads to higher sales - win / win?
The new F100 OAL is a bit longer than the equivalent Dual 80
d.mcfarland
Well-known member
Going by the FH80 vs FH100 and pictures in the first post they are not even close.
demarpaint
Well-known member
I was going to post that same question too. A few years back they tweaked the 80 tooth ratchet style and went away from that design to having the screws screwing through the back plate into the threaded body of the ratchet, saying the new design was stronger. Maybe they had a problem with people stripping them in the body, and it is cheaper to warranty the cover plate? Either way it wouldn't surprise me one bit if this new design is tweaked in a year or so, maybe sooner.
The story I heard was that gravity was causing the screws to get lost because the screws were threaded upwards against gravity. In A&P mechanics school, they teach you to always have the bolt head positioned upwards in a vertical situation or have the bolt head positioned forward in a horizontal situation. The idea was that the aircraft's forward momentum would hopefully keep the bolt head seated against what it's fastening if by chance the nut was to fall off.
Last edited:
demarpaint
Well-known member
Interesting, thanks. Then it begs the question why did they change that when they tweaked it? They could have made the internal tweaks and left the cover plate screws as they were. In any event I have a feeling the 100 tooth design will be tweaked sooner rather than later. IIRC I read that was already in the works.
demarpaint
Well-known member
No they did an upgrade/update 38/" drive to the 80 tooth ratchets. It was discussed here.
demarpaint
Well-known member
They did, and it was more than just the screws. I'm searching the archives, hopefully I'll find it.
demarpaint
Well-known member
I'm striking out unfortunately, they did make changes to the flex-head, and I could swear they did some internal changes to the 3/8" version, but I'll be damned if I can find it.
The only thing I heard was that the 72 tooth 1/4 drive was the least smoothest and that it would jamb sometimes. I don't know if that was resolved or not. The other thing I heard was that the smoothest ratchet was the 1/2 drive but its screws would fall out sometimes. Makes me wonder why the screws don't fall out of the other drive sizes.
If they tapped threads in the F100 ratchet body, it looks like they would be on the limit of acceptable wall thickness. Hard to tell from the picture without measurements.
The engineers at Snap-On probably had a couple good reasons to change it.
Picture is from @JSCraftsman
Post in thread 'New Snap-On F100' https://www.garagejournal.com/forum/threads/new-snap-on-f100.520357/post-10498376
Compared to the F80 where the majority of the threads have a lot of material to grip into.
Having the threads in the ratchet body gives you more thread engagement length vs in the 2mm thick cover plate. It's not really necessary though - most of the stress is not axial on the gear/anvil (trying to pull the cover plate off) if the ratchet is used properly.
The engineers at Snap-On probably had a couple good reasons to change it.
Picture is from @JSCraftsman
Post in thread 'New Snap-On F100' https://www.garagejournal.com/forum/threads/new-snap-on-f100.520357/post-10498376
Compared to the F80 where the majority of the threads have a lot of material to grip into.
Having the threads in the ratchet body gives you more thread engagement length vs in the 2mm thick cover plate. It's not really necessary though - most of the stress is not axial on the gear/anvil (trying to pull the cover plate off) if the ratchet is used properly.
Last edited:
What I remember if correctly is when they 1st changed to the Dual 80 design, having the screws screwed into the cover plate was not strong enough. Under higher torque the anvil or pawls would tweak the cover plate & cause binding. So they changed to the thread in body design to fix that.
If that really was the issue, I suppose making the cover plate beefy enough could solve the issue also but that could mean having to make the overall thickness of the head thicker.
demarpaint
Well-known member
In addition to that I could have sworn there was for lack of a better term a cover under the cover on the newer 3/8 ratchets made after 2021 give or take a year.
With the S80(1/2 drive before S80A) they changed the mounting on the screws because it caused issues under high torque.
On the 3/8 or 1/4 they changed the mounting on just the long ratchets. Most likely it was a torque issue too but it never came up because it was done before release.
On the 3/8 or 1/4 they changed the mounting on just the long ratchets. Most likely it was a torque issue too but it never came up because it was done before release.
According to this pic in another thread, I think you're correct.
Show your new tool arrivals
I never liked SK ratchets. But did you try oiling the ratchet mechanism? Nah, probably won’t. Like most of us here I have an abundance of ratchets. Im with you also, not generally a fan of round head ratchets.
www.garagejournal.com
I wonder why they increased the length on one, but not the other
MWEric
Well-known member
Unlike the F80 vs F100 length where the F100 is a bit longer, the FH100 is quite a bit shorter.
MWEric
Well-known member
Wamsutta……..the grips are identical shape and size of the new Dual80 grips. 
MWEric
Well-known member
Yes, not sure when but recently. The green dual 80 in my pic is the original size. The yellow one is the new size.
joel63
Well-known member
Please come back and tell us what you found.
demarpaint
Well-known member
I'm still looking.Please come back and tell us what you found.
demarpaint
Well-known member
Tossing in the towel. I could have sworn they did some tweaking to the 80 tooth ratchets other than the screw orientation to the cover plate, and the flex-head ratchet changes.Please come back and tell us what you found.
There is a snap ring under the cover plate on the FLLF80 ratchet, but I was under the impression that change was limited to the reverse fork flex heads. https://www.garagejournal.com/forum...le-and-usa-on-head.358773/page-2#post-6495472
demarpaint
Well-known member
Thank you! I knew they made tweaks in addition to screw placement to beef them up! My question is did that snap ring under the cover plate carry over to the newer 3/8" 80 tooth standard ratchets?
2ndGearRubber
Well-known member
Can confirm, my reverse-fork 3/8 techangle has the snap ring. It's the 5-125ft/lb model.
John Timmins
Well-known member
Do these two ratchets have the same number of teeth ?