Fedwrench
ALLIANCE MEMBER
Break out the popcorn, Project Farm released a 1/2 drive digital torque wrench test video on You Tube today. Let the gnashing of teeth begin
Last edited:
Project Farm Digital Torque wrench test
- Thread starter Fedwrench
- Start date
General Geoff
Well-known member
inb4 "sample of one! NOT REAL DATA"
My problem with "budget" torque wrenches is not whether they are .5%, 1% or 5% accurate, its that using them is frustrating as hell... Something as simple as just setting the target torque value is ridiculously stupid, scrolling through values in tenths of a foot pound when trying to go for example from 50 to 120. Or the copious amount of beeping and flashing it does *before* you get to the prescribed torque values. Hard to read displays, lack of flex heads, etc.
These are the things that make every 'cheap' digital torque wrench I've used to be garbage-level to me, not their lack of accuracy. With precision load cells and digital electronics, the accuracy thing isn't what it used to be.
So sadly I'll continue using my semi-ancient Snap-On 3/8 digital torque wrench and 1/2" split beam until such point as I'm wiling to pony up the $2,o00 or so for a new Snap-on three piece digital set.
I haven't tried the Icon digitals though... The 1/2" has been out of stock forever at my local HF stores.
These are the things that make every 'cheap' digital torque wrench I've used to be garbage-level to me, not their lack of accuracy. With precision load cells and digital electronics, the accuracy thing isn't what it used to be.
So sadly I'll continue using my semi-ancient Snap-On 3/8 digital torque wrench and 1/2" split beam until such point as I'm wiling to pony up the $2,o00 or so for a new Snap-on three piece digital set.
I haven't tried the Icon digitals though... The 1/2" has been out of stock forever at my local HF stores.
retDAC
Well-known member
What about the weeping and wailing?Break out the popcorn, Project Farm released a 1/2 drive digital torque wrench test video on You Tube today. Let the gnashing of teeth begin
This is something many do not seem to realize with the project farm videos. I like the guy and some of his videos. But often he is measuring and ranking tightly grouped things with no statistics or deviations. That is in no way proper. Due to this, in many cases his rankings likely do not carry a lot of meaning. You also do not properly use wrenches to within their material failure range making some of his common categories silly. A lot of important things are more subjective on ease of use, ergonomics, etc.
Last edited:
Reposting since intended as a reply:
This is something many do not seem to realize with the project farm videos. I like the guy and some of his videos. But often he is measuring and ranking tightly grouped things with no statistics or deviations. That is in no way proper. Due to this, in many cases his rankings likely do not carry a lot of meaning. You also do not properly use wrenches to within their material failure range making some of his common categories silly. A lot of important things are more subjective on ease of use, ergonomics, etc.
Last edited:
finn
Well-known member
Sometimes you have no option other than to evaluate a sample of one. In that case the error made is to rank things when in fact the difference between different products is testing repeatability (or test to test variability) rather than a real difference in the products tested.
If all products tested have close results, you’re picking fly **** out of pepper rather than really ranking the products.
We always shot for sample sizes of at least ten, then constructed a Bender plot when analyzing data. The bigger the sample, the better.
Last edited:
dnschmidt
Well-known member
How accurate does a digital torque wrench actually need to be? Torque is a ******** measurement to begin with having 1000 variables that affect the true bolt stretch, such as lube, distorting the measurement, which is why torque to yield has become the standard for many applications. 3% in basically all cases is certainly close enough and just about every wrench, except Gearwrench, met that specification. To me he should have used all angle torque wrenches as they are needed for most automotive applications these days. As an Eclatorq dealer I can tell you that the S-K is made by Eclatorq.
Sometimes it’s little stuff. My Mitutoyo digital calipers have a really easy to read screen. My cheapies screens are dim and harder to read from an angle.
Not saying my Snap on torque wrench screens are easy to read. I have the first gen tech angles. But it can be stuff like that that just bugs me about certain tools.
When that happens, no meaningful conclusions can be drawn about the population from which that single specimen came. We can learn only about the particular specimen tested. That's not useful for evaluating mass produced goods.
That it's challenging to perform a proper evaluation doesn't make an improper evaluation valid or credible.
finn
Well-known member
The alternative is to ***** and wring our hands.
I worked in Product Development for thirty five years. Sometimes you play the hand you’re dealt, and from a practical standpoint we all live with budget and time constraints that are out of our control, so we deal with it.
We often did competitive evaluations of other vehicles and engines. You have to assume the engine you buy from Cummins , GM, Audi, Mercedes, or whoever is representative. There’s no lab in the world, or company with a budget large enough to buy and test say 50 engines at twenty thousand dollars and up to do a competitive evaluation.
My son works in Product Development for an automobile manufacturer. Do you honestly think they buy a large sample of competitive vehicles?
Where you do statistical evaluations is with your own product, to understand variability. And that’s mostly on a component level to develop specification targets and limits.
The alternative is to recognize that Project Farm is entertainment designed to sell ads, not to provide to consumers credible information about tools on the market.
ETA: If you don't see the difference between a complex machine like a car and a simple product like an L-key then there's nothing to talk about. And if you do understand the difference, then you know yours is a straw man argument.
finn
Well-known member
I get it. Your L key must have performed poorly when he evaluated it.
I think he’s pretty clear about the fact that he doesn’t accept product endorsements, aka ads. Any ads you see are placed through YouTube. I don’t see any since I have Premium, thanks to my kids.
Actually, though, I recall questioning if he was testing variability of the tools or of the fasteners he was using as fixtures.. He’s no lab with instrumentation traceable to the National Bureau of Standards, but his tests are still usually somewhat valid.
Last edited:
Nope. They came in at or near the top of his "test" results. Sorry to disappoint you.
So he says. He can say whatever he wants. Nonetheless, the videos are designed to sell ads. That's where the revenue comes from.
Valid is definitely not an adjective I would consider using to describe his tests. Entertaining, perhaps, but not valid. Either the guy intentionally misleads his viewers, or he is a walking embodiment of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Hanlon's razor suggests the latter is more likely.
jayemm
Well-known member
All blather aside about lack of scientific testing rigor, sample size, statistics etc, take it for what it is. If anything it shows that more than adequate accuracy is attainable for an economical price and that the relatively cheap torque wrenches survived 1000 cycles. Maybe this has appeal to the DIY crowd where the tools only see infrequent use and their budget is limited. The lovers of the "high priced spread" can still feel secure in their higher quality tools even if their accuracy is essentially no better.
The guy puts a lot of thought and effort into his videos and even if I don't always agree with his test methodology, I at least learn a few things and don't go in with intentions of picking it apart. There's a little entertainment value also. There's a lot of way worse, worthless "tests" out there in youtubeland.
The guy puts a lot of thought and effort into his videos and even if I don't always agree with his test methodology, I at least learn a few things and don't go in with intentions of picking it apart. There's a little entertainment value also. There's a lot of way worse, worthless "tests" out there in youtubeland.
finn
Well-known member
You work for a company that obviously has a lot of experience with testing and statistics. Instead of bitching,, why not belly up and offer your lab and budget to refute some of his work. You probably already have data on your competitors L keys, and certainly can find the budget to procure and test fifty or a hundred torque wrenches.
I’ll bet you can do it for under a hundred grand.
Neither budget nor lab is required to refute his work, only a basic understanding of stats and physics, tempered with some critical thought.
His tests often include a substantial human component. His implied assumption is that he can perform identically test after test, which is improbable, to say the least. There's often no way to distinguish between tool failure and human failure to perform the procedure correctly and precisely. As rigorous testing goes, PF is laughable. His videos are best viewed from Utah's Bonneville Salt Flats.
Yep, I think oily fasteners can throw off the measurement for 10-20% easily. Of course depends on the thread (big/small, coarse or fine...).
That said, on many videos I saw things that made me question it. Two that pop to my mind are the car jacks (the US made one bent but he did not mention it and did not show it again on the video, but he noted the bend when the chinese one bent. I really wonder what the agenda there was?) and also the ratcheting screwdriver where in the final rankings he took out a category saying it isn't important (failure torque) and then also removed the magnetic retention because it also "is not that important". I don't think he ever did that before but coincidentally the ranking then showed the LTT screwdriver on top. Of course this video got millions of views from the LTT tech channel fans and it gave his whole channel a huge boost.
But in majority of tests, as far as the quality tools go, the "results" are often very close. Well within margin of error for his tests. But in the end there is a ranked list...
finn
Well-known member
Project much? Yours is the only cop-out response.
You seem to be taking criticism directed at PF personally.
No one is saying you can't watch your silly videos anymore. But you're kidding yourself if you believe they perform credible, objective tool testing.
roofdweller49
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2023
- Messages
- 180
So do I want the eclatorq Quinn or the Kabo Icon?
dnschmidt
Well-known member
Either will do.
The problem with the review (obviously) is that the answer to your question remains elusive.
My opinion: the root problem is that PF long ago left his realm of expertise. So the criteria he uses are academic at best.
If you asked me as an avid amateur auto mechanic to provide buying advice I would say, based on years of actual use, not theory: (no particular order)
- Forget accuracy claims. They are either lies or so dependent on your technique such that the entire topic is irrelevant.
- Digital wrenches are nice for 2 chief reasons.
- Unit changing ability. I'm very good at math but can't convert 17Nm to ftlbs in my head. Many wrenches have both markings, but some don't and sometimes I need to go from inch pounds to metric etc. So digitals are very nice for this, but in my opinion, NOT WORTH THE PRICE FOR THIS ALONE
- Seeing torque values as you apply load. You can get a sense for friction in the joint, which is nice for a couple reasons. Example: when you have a self locking element and you want to check to see if that's still working, needs to be replaced, or you need to get out the locktite. BUT: The key feature is a screen that's legible from different angles. I would compare screen legibility in a test, not screen size. Brightness may be a better measure.
- Choose a wrench that can do ANGLES. The stuff above is nice, but not 100% required for everyone. In my opinion, ANGLE measuring is really the sole justification for a digital torque wrench.
- BATTERIES! The Snap on models I have use std AA batteries, which should be removed after use for storage. That process should be easy and the battery cover robust. Snap on made a design change because they had problems with their end caps. I'd compare battery types and the robustness of their housings.
- I personally feel AA batteries are a bit old school. I’d prefer a 9 or 12V replaceable battery pack like cordless drill’s. I think an onboard battery and charger would be dead every time I needed it, so I think replaceable batteries are a must. Rechargeable AA MIGHT be acceptable to me.
Last edited:
Beyond the discussion of information vs. statistically-significant data, I have a bit of a different perspective. Given the environment where these tools have multi-year or lifetime warranties that cost the manufacturer real money if they fail at an unacceptable rate, a certain amount of manufacturing consistency is a reasonable expectation because they have a self-interest and a financial incentive. The tolerances in modern mass production are set and checked through production, and wide variances are the small exception vs. the rule. The tests across channels like Tools Tested, Torque Test Channel, Project Farm, etc. tend to show us how wide those tolerances are, and especially as we see consistency (or not) between them.
The word tends to come out when it comes to quality these days, and I think all three channels mentioned above are doing a good job avoiding favoritism and bias. They also offer us some insight on things like materials and build.
I spent well over a decade talking to customers, analysts and press about engineering that yielded low failures and warranty claim rates. Part of our process was to evaluate field failure data and see what could be incorporated to minimize them. While I had statistically-significant data, it was considered confidential, so I showed the engineering/design process and actual implementations we did to improve. Customers would often comment about how they saw the results in their environment. Rarely did what they have amount to actual statistically-significant data but in comparing what I was showing them, the consistency in the real world was clear, or at least clear enough that they gave us credit for our efforts when choosing who to buy.
I guess my point is that the information we can glean from those videos and compare to what we see out in the world is useful enough.
jessesandy
Well-known member
Project Farm's approach is wide and shallow.
Not narrow and deep.
Still has value.
Setting youtube playback speed to 1.25 helps me watch his channel.
Not narrow and deep.
Still has value.
Setting youtube playback speed to 1.25 helps me watch his channel.
dnschmidt
Well-known member
You must have bionic ears. I can barely follow him at normal speed with as fast as he talks.
jayemm
Well-known member
Amen to that. Sometimes I play back at .75 speed to get it more tolerable. It also makes his voice a little less piercing but can sound too slow which is just as bad. But maybe there's hope as one of his latest sounded like normal speech.
Wish they'd put a standard 18650 cell form lithium battery inside. All higher end flashlights have these user replaceable cells. Most cars and electronics also use them but they're welded in a pack so it's not replaceable. But there's no need for that, if it works for high end flashlights it could just as well work for a bunch of other products...
That's not really the case though. 18650 Li-Ion (lithium cobolt oxide etc.) cells are used in high end flashlights because they can support really high currents without too much voltage sag and without damaging the cells. But those same cells have relatively high self discharge rates (1 - 3% per month or more depending on temperature) that make them less ideal for applications with very low power demands but long storage requirements.
By comparison, lithium primary cells (like an energizer L91 lithium AA cell) can have a 20 - 25 year shelf life. Even your run of the mill alkaline AA has a self discharge rate of less than .3% per month and can remain functional for many years. Meanwhile, they provide more than enough power for the little flashy lights, LCD display and buzzer on something like a torque wrench and they're inexpensive and widely available.
Last edited:
the problem with AA cells is that everyone is going to use regular alkaline cells in them. And modern alkaline cells are garbage that leak without any provocation.
Wamsutta
Well-known member
Does Project Farm include angle torque wrenches or just digital torque wrenches?
Agree. I'm not going to go out and buy a bunch of torque wrenches, then test them individually to see which SAMPLE is best. At least his vids give a decent insight into potential issues/problems/inaccuracies.
I totally understand people wailing on the lack of testing rigor and the fact that he only tests one sample, so a given sample may be defective (or better) than a broad sampling.
I look at the sampling issue this way. I only buy one torque wrench (personally) at a time. Me buying my one torque wrench is just as likely as he is to get a diamond or a lemon. Him buying and testing a broad sample of each torque wrench might help his test of finding diamonds and lemons, but won't help me in getting a diamond when I buy my one. The testing just gives me an idea of where I MIGHT want to start, or definitely want to steer clear of.
dnschmidt
Well-known member
Some like the Tech Angle and the ICON automatically have angle function. I don't know about the rest of them. All I do know is that if you buy a digital torque wrench without angle you're making a mistake.
Unacceptable rate is relative to expected rate. The cost to the manufacturer from expected warranty replacements are built into the initial price, spread out among all customers. A low-quality tool with a lifetime warranty is only a problem for the manufacturer (beyond reputation) if they don't realize it's a low-quality tool before they sell them and experience more warranty claims than were expected, by a substantial margin.
I would point out that Sears learned decades ago that offering a mid-tier tool with a top-tier, no-hassle warranty is a successful formula. Harbor Freight continues that tradition today. Despite the great warranty, there is good reason that most professional mechanics don't rely on HF (or Sears) for the bulk of their tools.
In my experience, manufacturer reputation is more important than product warranty. I prefer tools that are less likely to fail over less reliable tools with great warranties. I have plenty of second-hand tools (with non-transferrable warranties) for which I paid more than I would have paid for a similar new tool, with a lifetime warranty, from a less reputable manufacturer.
Warranties used to be a way for companies to build a reputation for building, and standing behind, a quality product. Somewhere along the line, manufacturers figured out that warranties are fundamentally just insurance policies for which appropriate premium prices can be calculated. As long as those premiums can be included in the price without scaring away consumers, product quality and warranty quality can be largely independent. A poor-quality tool can have a great warranty just like a poor driver can have excellent insurance coverage.
I tend to watch most videos at 1.25-2.0 unless the increased speed ruins things (e.g., music). Most YT videos seem to be intentionally drawn out to hit certain duration benchmarks for algorithm purposes.
If it’s annoying enough that I have to speed it up to make it tolerable, I just won’t watch the damned thing. I don’t have any desire to watch the Micro Machine salesman. That Project Farm goober sounds like he’s already at 1.75x at normal speed. Last thing I want is to hear him faster-er.