Cycling UK Forum

Andy Stow wrote:....It was accurate within its readability (better than ±1 N·m.).....

that is pretty much what I'd expect. All that is needed now are some extension bars, each one having a male 1/4" hex at one end and a male square drive at the other. I'd suggest two to start with, four and nine times the length, giving x5 (0-50 Nm 3/8" drive) and x10 (0-100 Nm 1/2" drive) respectively. The only problem would be that the resolution is poor, ie. instead of the scale reading +/-1 Nm it would read +/- 5 Nm and +/- 10 Nm respectively. However, if the wrench were used in tandem with a device that reproducibly gave a fixed torque (of, say 90 Nm) then the two would be additive, so you would be able to produce a high torque with good resolution, eg. 90-100 Nm +/- 1.

I did what Cyclothesist suggested and bent the pointer and now it's spot on. It only had to be bent a tiny amount. I find it simple and straightforward to use. The only drawback, if I can call it that, is that you have to be at the right angle to the scale to get an accurate reading.

SprokenBroke wrote: ↑25 Sep 2024, 8:20pm I did what Cyclothesist suggested and bent the pointer and now it's spot on. It only had to be bent a tiny amount. I find it simple and straightforward to use. The only drawback, if I can call it that, is that you have to be at the right angle to the scale to get an accurate reading.

Yes, no harm in rebending the pointer to zero whenever needed. Its just an indicator, not the active beam.

You do have to move your head around a lot (and I often need to use reading glasses) to use it.

Cyclothesist wrote: ↑25 Sep 2024, 9:36am It's a beam TW so you can zero it by bending the pointer to align with zero.

That's exactly what Park Tool say you should do on their beam TWs. I've just bought one, so many thanks to everyone for their advice here and on other threads - was planning to get a digital/clicky one until I read Brucey's words.

I got one or two torque clicker wrenches in the past but hardly ever used them as they were nonintuitive, and the unit conversion baffled me. Then, a few years ago, I got a digital adaptor, and it was a revolution. It was straightforward to use; you could get any units you wanted. I started using it over and over. Its only negative was that it made a bulky setup that might not even fit into the available space in some cases. Earlier this year, I bought a digital wrench as these went down in price. I am pleased with it even more than an adaptor. Yes, I did research on which to buy ahead of the purchases.

2_i wrote: ↑28 Sep 2024, 9:18am I got one or two torque clicker wrenches in the past but hardly ever used them as they were nonintuitive, and the unit conversion baffled me. Then, a few years ago, I got a digital adaptor, and it was a revolution. It was straightforward to use; you could get any units you wanted.
...

That's interesting.

For people who aren't fluent with multiple units for torque (or anything else) I'd strongly recommend the other approach: convert to your preferred units offline and keep the tool working on that single system of preferred units. That will probably cause fewer errors and helps enormously with the learning curve of what that torque actually means and feels like.

Jonathan

Jdsk wrote: ↑28 Sep 2024, 10:49am For people who aren't fluent with multiple units for torque (or anything else) I'd strongly recommend the other approach: convert to your preferred units offline and keep the tool working on that single system of preferred units. That will probably cause fewer errors and helps enormously with the learning curve of what that torque actually means and feels like.

Jonathan

When I studied physics the CGS system was used exclusively, although the MKS system was mentioned. Then, once I had left uni the International Synod of Obscurantists decided that MKS was king and gave opaque names to units derived under it, e.g. the "Newton" for 1 kg-metre per second per second. My poor brain never did get over that.

I think it was a communist plot.

I have four torque wrenches 1/4, 3/8, 1/2 & 3/4”; they are all Teng, which came calibrated and are shown as plus or minus 4% which is accurate enough for me and the applications I use them on. They have never been dropped or used by anyone else and I trust them, which I certainly wouldn’t if they had come from Lidls.

I say use what you’re happy with, but I certainly won’t entertain a tool from Lidl being used in my garage or at work. I’m not sure exactly what the guys at work use, but we use Grade 10.9, HT fine thread large Dia bolts on some of our machines that require a torque multiplier.

When I studied physics the CGS system was used exclusively, although the MKS system was mentioned. Then, once I had left uni the International Synod of Obscurantists decided that MKS was king and gave opaque names to units derived under it, e.g. the "Newton" for 1 kg-metre per second per second. My poor brain never did get over that.

I think it was a communist plot.

You may have a point: of the countries that I have worked in, Russia (though post-Glasnost) was easily the most metricated; non-SI units did not get mentioned at all as far as I remember.

rotavator wrote: ↑29 Sep 2024, 7:28pm

When I studied physics the CGS system was used exclusively, although the MKS system was mentioned. Then, once I had left uni the International Synod of Obscurantists decided that MKS was king and gave opaque names to units derived under it, e.g. the "Newton" for 1 kg-metre per second per second. My poor brain never did get over that.

I think it was a communist plot.

You may have a point: of the countries that I have worked in, Russia (though post-Glasnost) was easily the most metricated; non-SI units did not get mentioned at all as far as I remember.

No idea where you guys were educated or how old you are but over 40 yrs ago I was taught in SI units from 'O' levels on in the UK.

Cyclothesist wrote: ↑29 Sep 2024, 7:40pm

rotavator wrote: ↑29 Sep 2024, 7:28pm

When I studied physics the CGS system was used exclusively, although the MKS system was mentioned. Then, once I had left uni the International Synod of Obscurantists decided that MKS was king and gave opaque names to units derived under it, e.g. the "Newton" for 1 kg-metre per second per second. My poor brain never did get over that.

I think it was a communist plot.

You may have a point: of the countries that I have worked in, Russia (though post-Glasnost) was easily the most metricated; non-SI units did not get mentioned at all as far as I remember.

No idea where you guys were educated or how old you are but over 40 yrs ago I was taught in SI units from 'O' levels on in the UK.

Born in 1964, we were taught both systems, but in 1980 when I started my apprenticeship it was SI only until the late 80s when I changed jobs we went metric. I still convert on a daily basis.

A fellow dragon. Guess I've just been lucky to have only worked in SI units. Never knew the 'metric' system had so many variants until I looked it up. The one imperial unit I do preferentially use is tyre pressure in psi Odd really because I used kPa all the time at work.

I was also born in 1964 and I was taught nothing but metric/SI. However, I quickly realised that no-one older and wiser than me understood a word of it, so I made an effort to become 'bilingual' to some extent at an early age.

Im a bit older so brought up with imperial units then subjected to. Cgs, then Mks before going completely metric. I still think in pounds feet and inches it have no difficulty transposing them into kgs, metres and millimetres.