Project Farm tests flex-head ratchets (and one roto-head)

[Etchase]

I ordered one (of course I did )

That made in Italy DeWalt is unusual, in that you don’t torque down the screw on the switch, you adjust the tightness to get the required resistance. It relies on the lock tight on the fastener. I’ve never seen this on Facom or USAG ratchets, but it’s clearly their design and made in their factory. I like mine a lot. Wish I knew about them when they were still available in the other sizes. I like the handle shape.

 

[dmparksa]

I ordered one (of course I did )

Let us know how you like it. I've been thinking about it, but I rarely use 1/2" ratchets that short.

 

[Farmall450]

That made in Italy DeWalt is unusual, in that you don’t torque down the screw on the switch, you adjust the tightness to get the required resistance. It relies on the lock tight on the fastener. I’ve never seen this on Facom or USAG ratchets, but it’s clearly their design and made in their factory. I like mine a lot. Wish I knew about them when they were still available in the other sizes. I like the handle shape.

The 3/8 is on eBay, albeit for more dinero.

 

[Farmall450]

Let us know how you like it. I've been thinking about it, but I rarely use 1/2" ratchets that short.

I use a few, normally Easco or Cman RHFT. Sometimes you don't need an impact or a long flex, but I agree, it's getting rare.

 

[LWB]

I think these tests are rather silly. Feel is what's important to me.

I have Canadian Tire Maximum (Gearwrench), Husky, TONE, Powerfist (Carlye), Astro, Tekton and Snap On. There's only one brand that stands out from the crowd. The rest are okay.

 

[2ndGearRubber]

Exactly. They are (or should) be designed to last nearly indefinitely at the normal usage torque range.

A well designed tool would also add a factor of safety added in for shock loading (applying torque in a jerky motion) and for torquing with an extension where the ratchet gear is side loaded, etc. So those higher failure torque numbers make some sense you account for real world usage.


There's probably a bit more variability in the cheaper ones but that's just my assumption.

The jerk/slam to break something free has to be the number one cause of extreme load.

Design matter too, for instance snap ring designs like matco and gearwrench HATE having the gears side loaded. This can cause the snap ring to unseat and just puke the guts out. Happens if one has a socket stuck on a fastener and jerks the ratchet up and down along the handle axis to wiggle it free. They don't like that.

Snap on has a very nice skip/grab, which I like. Other than snap on, matco, and, tekton,and gearwrnech I don't have a ton of data on failures as those historically have been my daily users. You can blow up an SK round head, via making the outer head case explode. But if you do that, you were being dumb IMO. BTDT.

 

[Steve_P]

About the strength testing - I would agree it's not the main selling point of a ratchet but more to show outliers. How a ratchet feels to use is more important to me. But there is a correlation between the ultimate failure strength and the fatigue strength (lower torque but for many more cycles).

An engineering "rule of thumb" is that the endurance limit (a stress at which failure will not occur no matter how many cycles) is about half of the ultimate failure strength (what PF tests, a single shot failure stress).

This goes for Steels - Aluminum doesn't really exhibit the same properties and isn't as predictable.



To keep it simple: if a ratchet anvil shears off at 100 ft-lbs of torque in a single go (brand new), it would theoretically have "infinite life" at a 50 ft-lbs stress level. There's much more to it, but it's a decent approximation.

Fatigue loading concerns? In a hand tool? Cmon. Impact gun anvils would be shearing off daily if this was a valid concern. But they don't.

 

[teagueo]

Fatigue loading concerns? In a hand tool? Cmon. Impact gun anvils would be shearing off daily if this was a valid concern. But they don't.

Where'd I say it was a concern? I provided an estimated fatigue life from the failure strength for people who think the PF test is useless. This guy must be the biggest troll on GJ lol @Steve_P

 

[Farmall450]

As promised:

 

[CoThG]

Who needs both hands to yank on a 3/8" long handle ratchet to bust loose a 25 year old crusty suspension bolt that lacks clearance for a 1/2" drive ratchet, and that's lived in the rust belt its entire life? Lotsa people.

If a fastener is that tight, you should be using a breaker bar and not abusing your ratchet.

 

[liliysdad]

If a fastener is that tight, you should be using a breaker bar and not abusing your ratchet.

Or…just buy decent stuff with a good warranty.

 

[CoThG]

Or…just buy decent stuff with a good warranty.

No. Only a Bubba would willingly abuse a ratchet like that. But then again, the majority of auto "techs" are Bubbas.

 

[liliysdad]

No. Only a Bubba would willingly abuse a ratchet like that. But then again, the majority of auto "techs" are Bubbas.

Tools aren’t jewelry. If a ratchet will get it done… why get a breaker?

 

[CoThG]

Tools aren’t jewelry. If a ratchet will get it done… why get a breaker?

The topic was putting a cheater pipe on a ratchet and breaking the ratchet. If the fastener is that tight, get a long breaker bar and save your ratchet.

 

[liliysdad]

The topic was putting a cheater pipe on a ratchet and breaking the ratchet. If the fastener is that tight, get a long breaker bar and save your ratchet.

I’m aware..and again, if a ratchet will handle a cheater, why not? As has been covered, many ratchets have as high a torque rating as breakers….and if they break you get a new one.

 

[Komet]

I’m aware..and again, if a ratchet will handle a cheater, why not? As has been covered, many ratchets have as high a torque rating as breakers….and if they break you get a new one.

You can progressively apply torque way more smoothly with a long breaker bar than a cheater pipe. Less violence and drama when the bolt breaks free. Also no risk to ratcheting mechanisms.

 

[JeepYJ]

You can progressively apply torque way more smoothly with a long breaker bar than a cheater pipe. Less violence and drama when the bolt breaks free. Also no risk to ratcheting mechanisms.

A long breaker or a cheater pipe function the same way. In fact sometimes I use a cheater pipe on a breaker bar. Less work for me by using leverage as a mechanical advantage. The ratcheting mechanism is probably the weak link.

 

[LWB]

If a fastener is that tight I'm using an impact. If I have to use a wrench it's going to be a fixed box end.

Why stress the ratcheting mechanism for no reason?

 

[CoThG]

If a fastener is that tight I'm using an impact. If I have to use a wrench it's going to be a fixed box end.

Why stress the ratcheting mechanism for no reason?

Agreed, but Bubba says it under warranty...

 

[LWB]

Agreed, but Bubba says it under warranty...

I guess that's why I don't care about warranty

 

[CoThG]

I guess that's why I don't care about warranty

I care more about not willingly abusing a tool when you probably have a more appropriate tool to use (breaker bar).

 

[richfinn]

Who uses tools to the point of destruction?, it tells you nothing about real world performance.

It's like taking a VW and Ferrari and holding them both at full throttle until the engines blow up and declaring a winner!!!

It's a cheap gimmick to attract views in my opinion.

 

[Steve_P]

Who uses tools to the point of destruction?, it tells you nothing about real world performance.

It's like taking a VW and Ferrari and holding them both at full throttle until the engines blow up and declaring a winner!!!

It's a cheap gimmick to attract views in my opinion.

It is a valid data point, and that's just one of the many things he tests for; you can certainly ignore that test if it's not important to you, and only watch the tests that are important to you; we can all base a purchasing decision on what we feel is important.

If ratchet A failed at 50 lb-ft, which would be unacceptable for a 3/8, and B at 200, how would you know if you didn't test it until it failed?

 

[CoThG]

It is a valid data point, and that's just one of the many things he tests for; you can certainly ignore that test if it's not important to you, and only watch the tests that are important to you; we can all base a purchasing decision on what we feel is important.

If ratchet A failed at 50 lb-ft, which would be unacceptable for a 3/8, and B at 200, how would you know if you didn't test it until it failed?

I only buy known high quality tools. That way, I don't need to test to failure. I know they won't fail under my operation. Now, a Bubba could break an anvil, but not me.

 

[richfinn]

It is a valid data point, and that's just one of the many things he tests for; you can certainly ignore that test if it's not important to you, and only watch the tests that are important to you; we can all base a purchasing decision on what we feel is important.

If ratchet A failed at 50 lb-ft, which would be unacceptable for a 3/8, and B at 200, how would you know if you didn't test it until it failed?

It's all about the dimensions, smoothness of the mechanism and quality/durability of the finish for me, if I need a stronger more appropriate tool to attack a fastener I probably already have one.

I've got tools that are 35-40 years old that have passed all my testing criteria working on stuff on a daily basis.

I get that other people sometimes like to see cheaper tools (or even cars) beating high quality expensive items in destructive testing, but it doesn't make them any more desirable or any more valuable to me personally.

I think Tool choice is a bit more nuanced than "Gorilla-proof"

 

[CoThG]

It's all about the dimensions, smoothness of the mechanism and quality/durability of the finish for me, if I need a stronger more appropriate tool to attack a fastener I probably already have one.

I've got tools that are 35-40 years old that have passed all my testing criteria working on stuff on a daily basis.

I get that other people sometimes like to see cheaper tools (or even cars) beating high quality expensive items in destructive testing, but it doesn't make them any more desirable or any more valuable to me personally.

I think Tool choice is a bit more nuanced than "Gorilla-proof"

You see this in the gun world as well. The poors with their "just as good as..."

 

[JeepYJ]

I only buy known high quality tools. That way, I don't need to test to failure. I know they won't fail under my operation. Now, a Bubba could break an anvil, but not me.

How do you know they’re “known high quality” if you don’t push them to failure in a test?
I’ve often seen comments on here where people won’t use their Snap On tool in the junkyard because they don’t want to break it. But will wail unmercifully on a Pittsburgh Pro tool from HF.

 

[CoThG]

How do you know they’re “known high quality” if you don’t push them to failure in a test?
I’ve often seen comments on here where people won’t use their Snap On tool in the junkyard because they don’t want to break it. But will wail unmercifully on a Pittsburgh Pro tool from HF.

I don't abuse my tools. If I had a one time application that called for the potential damage/destruction of a tool, then an HF tool would be utilized.

 

[Pinemarten]

If I broke my ratchet being stupid, I'd be angry with myself. I'd be out that ratchet until it got replaced. If I was "stepping into the danger zone" I'd go up one size, and probably grab a breaker bar at the same time.

I don't rev my vehicles to redline on every shift either.

 

[liliysdad]

I don't abuse my tools. If I had a one time application that called for the potential damage/destruction of a tool, then an HF tool would be utilized.

This is absolutely nonsensical, and points to the trend on this forum for many to treat tools as items to collect as opposed to use.

If you were in a situation where a tool would be pushed to its limits, wouldn’t you want a higher quality tool as opposed to a lesser? Any old cheap tool can do the daily, menial, Harry Homeowner tasks, but the rubber meets the road is in those situations where the abilities are tested….

But go ahead and keep polishing your Snap On no skip sets and beating on your Pittsburghs.

 

[Pinemarten]

I don't abuse my tools. If I had a one time application that called for the potential damage/destruction of a tool, then an HF tool would be utilized.

Same for me. If abuse is on the menu, I grab my 3/4" sliding t-handle. It makes fasteners surrender, while it laughs at my feeble attempts at abuse!

Oh, by the way.........I don't want to break my Pittsburgh ratchet either.

 

[JeepYJ]

This is absolutely nonsensical, and points to the trend on this forum for many to treat tools as items to collect as opposed to use.

If you were in a situation where a tool would be pushed to its limits, wouldn’t you want a higher quality tool as opposed to a lesser? Any old cheap tool can do the daily, menial, Harry Homeowner tasks, but the rubber meets the road is in those situations where the abilities are tested….

But go ahead and keep polishing your Snap On no skip sets and beating on your Pittsburghs.

The Snap On is “known high quality” because it is only used on new clean fasteners. When busting apart rusted junk I hammer on cheap tools which seem to work just fine in those conditions. I don’t get it either.

 

[CoThG]

This is absolutely nonsensical, and points to the trend on this forum for many to treat tools as items to collect as opposed to use.

If you were in a situation where a tool would be pushed to its limits, wouldn’t you want a higher quality tool as opposed to a lesser? Any old cheap tool can do the daily, menial, Harry Homeowner tasks, but the rubber meets the road is in those situations where the abilities are tested….

But go ahead and keep polishing your Snap On no skip sets and beating on your Pittsburghs.

I will. I don't have any applications, for foresee any applications where I'd have to push my good tools near destruction. If I ever run into that situation, then I'd purchase a "sacrificial" HF tool and destroy that versus ruining one of my good tools.

 

[liliysdad]

I’d much rather “ruin” my Snap-On, Matco, or Cornwell ratchet ….because it’s ability to take the bearing is much, much higher and in the off chance it does break I will have another just like it in my drawer in short order.

If I break a Pittsburgh I get….another Pittsburg. There are no winners in that game.

 

[Steve_P]

It's all about the dimensions, smoothness of the mechanism and quality/durability of the finish for me, if I need a stronger more appropriate tool to attack a fastener I probably already have one.

I've got tools that are 35-40 years old that have passed all my testing criteria working on stuff on a daily basis.

I get that other people sometimes like to see cheaper tools (or even cars) beating high quality expensive items in destructive testing, but it doesn't make them any more desirable or any more valuable to me personally.

I think Tool choice is a bit more nuanced than "Gorilla-proof"

I personally don't really disagree with you. But the reality is that SO, GW, Matco, Capri.... all make long handled ratchets that can be broken. And that same anvil, the typical failure point, is used in that entire tooth count line. Many people here can break an 18" long 3/8 drive ratchet based on their body weight, with no pipe. So that's really what that test is about. People that work on cars all day in states that see a lot of salt are going to break ratchets because they can't fit an impact in that space. Most of them probably want the strongest one they can get.

 

[richfinn]

I personally don't really disagree with you. But the reality is that SO, GW, Matco, Capri.... all make long handled ratchets that can be broken. And that same anvil, the typical failure point, is used in that entire tooth count line. Many people here can break an 18" long 3/8 drive ratchet based on their body weight, with no pipe. So that's really what that test is about. People that work on cars all day in states that see a lot of salt are going to break ratchets because they can't fit an impact in that space. Most of them probably want the strongest one they can get.

I live in cold, wet, rusty old Northern England

Been a Mechanic for almost 40 years and never broke a ratchet mechanism of any brand

I've used a fair bit of Oxy/Acetylene though to be fair, I try to use the right tool for the job every time

 

[CoThG]

I personally don't really disagree with you. But the reality is that SO, GW, Matco, Capri.... all make long handled ratchets that can be broken. And that same anvil, the typical failure point, is used in that entire tooth count line. Many people here can break an 18" long 3/8 drive ratchet based on their body weight, with no pipe. So that's really what that test is about. People that work on cars all day in states that see a lot of salt are going to break ratchets because they can't fit an impact in that space. Most of them probably want the strongest one they can get.

If you need an impact and can't fit one, then a ratchet is not the appropriate substitute, a breaker bar is.

 

[Firebrick43]

If a fastener is that tight, you should be using a breaker bar and not abusing your ratchet.

You do realize that the snap on dual 80 has been out for over 20 years now. They came out with ratchets longer than many other companies breaker bars and they are not failing by being used as a breaker bars on rusty autos, heavy equipment, or on industrial equipment..
Many other companies have come out with similar multitooth engagement pawls and caught up.

What was considered excessive torque 30 years ago is no longer relevant with the new class of ratchets.

Breaker bars are irrelevant now days to most mechs and we are not having our ratchets fail.

 

[liliysdad]

I can’t remember the last time I used a Breaker for anything. Not entirely sure why I still own them.

 

[CoThG]

I can’t remember the last time I used a Breaker for anything. Not entirely sure why I still own them.

Me either. All my equipment is in good repair with properly torqued fasteners.