These are not designed for max torque, (quite possibly just up to some DIN standard) but more for access where they shine. Just compare the size of the open end to the other wrenches in the video or your collection. I could be wrong but I think the Stahlwille 14 series goes back to around 1970.
An obvious defect for it to break like that, as evidenced by it being way to hard when tested, hopefully they are not all like that. King **** was always one of the cheaper UK manufacturers.
I couldn't believe it either. I, and TOPTUL, consider Stahlwille to be the best there is. Then again I seldom use open end wrenches so I don't know how much I really care. Typically you break something loose with the box end and then possibly take it off with the open end the rest of the way. Also the connecting nuts used in these tests are very soft, much softer than the bolts normally encountered on a car. Considering this I don't know how much I care about these results as I don't think they reflect real world usage of open end wrenches. Good testing and science no doubt but does it really matter.
I'd like to see the first generation Dewalt long pattern combination wrench with the Anti Slip open end tested even though they're no longer available.
I'd also like to see how the Die Hard long pattern wrenches from Advance Auto Parts would perform.
Proto's anti slip design doesn't mar fasteners unless you're using the wrong size wrench and it slips
The original Gearwrench long pattern non ratcheting combination wrenches were great to the point, that many people compared them to MATCO's opti torque series from the same time period. However, current PRC made Gearwrench have too many QC issues for me.
Dan the RBRT Guy just released another RBRT wrench video on You Tube. I swear the boxed end is a reincarnation of the old MAC Edge profile with notches on three sides of the hex. I'm sure those will make an appearance on the TTC soon.
I view it as the performance in doing the job, not as a function of it's thickness. If it's not too thick to fit the fastener and doesn't slip off like a thinner wrench might, then I'd say it's the better tool. I don't rate hammer performance as a function of it's weight. I pick one big enough to do the job. I found it amusing that the Torque Test Channel had a rating of ft-lbs/inch of length of impact wrench body, like you'd take a tape measure and calculator when shopping for one. Maybe I just misunderstand.
Yeah - I don't get the campaign for GearWrench, or the silly insinuation that TTT has a 'narrative'.
)A wrench that grips with a wide jaw and a High Torque impact wrench are both things that are great... when they fit. The same reason you might own a compact or mid torque impact wrench as well is the same reason you might buy an impact that's an inch shorter but makes the same power over another one, to be able to use it in more places.
I don't put a whole lot of stock in these tests since they're using really soft fasteners.
Yes I know why he does it.
No test methodology is "perfect."Yeah - I don't get the campaign for GearWrench, or the silly insinuation that TTT has a 'narrative'.
Their test methodology is perfect IMHO - it makes the wrench do all it can before the fastener becomes the failure point.
Anyway, interesting to see Icon up there too... (though our resident GW fan left that one out
That's why there's no perfect testing method. Your methods are dictated by what you're testing for.
Are you a scientist?
You say you get it, but I really don't think you get it - it isn't a "crank-on-soft-nuts" test. You seem to be really bothered by soft nuts, but it is the test media that takes the strength of the fastener out of the equation and ensures that the design of the wrench head is what is being measured. The transition of that performance to harder fasteners should hold, and you'd lose data on the wrenches as the performance of the fastener mixes in the test.
One can quickly tell professionals who use tools vs DIY vs the air chair users. "thickness doesn't matter", "I don't ever use the open end", etc. I enjoyed the test. It's confirmed imperically something I decided a long time ago; GW long pattern bang for the buck is pretty great but when you get serious about wrenching there are worthwhile upgrades and unfortunatly SO probably isn't worth the price were as Proto ASD and WrightGrip2 definetly are.
That's why I initially said I don't find the TTC testing useful. I didn't say it wasn't valid.
That's why testing is expensive. If you want to cover everything you buy multiples and get them to fail in different ways. You don't try to use the same one to failure over and over.
You're missing it. I don't know why you don't see that using grade 5 compromises the test and becomes partially about the fastener and muddies the result.
They're not slipping because the nut is soft. They're slipping because the design has reached it's limit to generate PSI on the test media. From there, you're relying on the strength of the fastener.
The nut is rounding off. It's biting into the nut so hard is tearing right through it.
Grade 5 simulates the real world better because that's what the real world uses, among even harder fasteners.
Like I said I'm not interested in this particular type of test on a fastener we never use.