Archived from the Tools In Action forum (Makita). This thread is read-only.
Here it is guys !
http://www.makita.biz/product/category/cordless/dtw1001_dtw1002_dtw800/index_f.html#1
New Makita +1000 Newton impact wrench. Looking good !
link doesn’t work for me, but that would certainly improve a weak point in their line! Wonder if that’s only its tightening torque (similar to Dewalt) and will have a high nut-busting torque? The leaders currently have ~1600Nm
Awesome!
It is tightening torque, yeah.
What exactly is nut busting torque? Is it the forces that the nut itself will have to experience from tightening it to the tightening torque? Meaning you should use a nut that can withstand more than that? Or anything else? And how do they measure this?
Here is an easier link/picture from the linky:
Compared to the milwaukee fuel: 2 inches shorter, 1,6 ibs heavier, 6 % more torque (1/2″)/ 4 % more torque (3/4″), and some kind of rubber protection in the front, and a fair bit prettier. 😛
For tightening torque – looks like the 3/4″ JUST beats the FUEL, and the 1/2″ easily beats the FUEL. Sweet!!!
http://www.milwaukeetools.com.au/power-tools/cordless/m18-fuel/show/m18chiwf34-502c
http://www.milwaukeetools.com.au/power-tools/cordless/m18-fuel/show/m18chiwp12-502c
But the HT Wrenches often have a much higher nut-busting (removal) torque. I wonder if the Makita will too?
“Nut busting” torque is usually measured as what you can torque a bolt to and still break it free with the tool.
The tightening torque of this impact is the same as the Milwaukee and Dewalt equivalents. If it’s anything like their impact drivers though I’m hoping it has more energy behind the impacts for driving lags and auger bits.
jeffmcmillan wrote:
“Nut busting” torque is usually measured as what you can torque a bolt to and still break it free with the tool..
Either you’re crazy, or the manufacturer specs are, because that makes no sense.
Can anyone explain me what nut busting torque is ? I frequently hear this term uses in english video’s/ reviews/ forums or in specificcations on the American Milwaukee website for example.
But in belgium i have never ever heard that term being user. All manufacturers just talk about their tightening torque over here.
Really confused about what that nutbusting thing is 😀
And thank you andrull for posting the pixs. I suck with the internet/forum linking things.
The direct link does work for me tho.
We don’t have this “nut busting” thingy here in Norway either. And on the torque tests on youtube, with torque meter usually seems to show the tightening torque. Pretty equivalent with the graph from Makita. I.e that it reaches and flatten out after a couple of seconds on the tightening torque.
Looks like a good impact wrench
“Nut-busting torque” is often quoted, with the usual definition being that the wrench can loosen a nut tightened with the specified amount of torque in some specified time period.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_wrench#Effects_of_impact_drive
I agree it’s a useless measure of torque, but it allows manufacturers to inflate their specs by around 30%.
Of course the impact energy is also a significant value and I’ve never seen that specified by a manufacturer for an impact wrench or driver.
Marketing bullsh!t at its finest!
I would love to see actual stats on tools, none of this “no load” garbage or nut busting crap.
I never understood how they are allowed to measure torque without load. The ratings are usually for peak torque measured for one second, rather than real world loads over time.
Boggles the mind.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
“Nut-busting” torque is just marketing speak, it doesn’t have any real meaning.
Ingersoll Rand has a good article about it:
At least makita doesn’t publish nut busting torque. But the more realistic “tightening torque”.
Problem is that a Impact today is about much more than just the torque. Lucikly, at the very least, we got a rough graph over the torque VS time. And with that, you know how quick it would tighten a bolt. But to be sure, best to se a side by side review.
But optimally you also want both the power output and energy (joules) behind each hit. Since, you’d do more than just thighten bolts. The power output could kind of be replaced by either a graph over the RPM (or just RPM under a static load).
With those measures, you could tell very accurately how it would perform under different kind of stress.
HiltiWpg wrote:
I would love to see actual stats on tools, none of this “no load” garbage or nut busting crap.
I never understood how they are allowed to measure torque without load. The ratings are usually for peak torque measured for one second, rather than real world loads over time.
Boggles the mind.
You can’t measure torque without load. If you want to brag about a very high torque, you’d want to measure it on the highest possible load you can get. A completly static load. (Not springy).
Yes, the RPM is measured at no-load, and will fall with rising load. But problem is that there is no universal standard that define what a “normal” load is, and depends completly on the situation and what tool you use.
On drills, perhaps they could all agree to test the RPM at 50 % load of the tool or something. But then again, it would probably be just as good to know the power output. And if you got power (watt), torque, and no-load RPM, you can actually calculate the RPM at your given load. And sometimes the manufactures give some numbers on the power output.
At impact wrenches, the situation is a bit different, since the RPM in itself only has meaning at No-load/near no-load situations. Once you got big enough load, and the spring and hammer/anvil starts turning, the actuall RPM you get out of it, (i.e that the user will see), would be defined by the energy delivered, and how often it hits (IPM). This is very impartant if you want to use a auger or large screws.
jeffmcmillan wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_wrench#Effects_of_impact_drive
I agree it’s a useless measure of torque, but it allows manufacturers to inflate their specs by around 30%.
Of course the impact energy is also a significant value and I’ve never seen that specified by a manufacturer for an impact wrench or driver.
Thanks, explained a fair bit
Thank for the articles on wikipedia and Ingersoll Rand.
Pretty much a marketing Term then?
So is this released as of now of coming soon?
Coming soon.
I still don’t get it. That IR article basically validated nut-busting torque as a real thing:
“Nut-busting” torque refers to the tool’s ability to remove a bolt that has been tightened down using methods other than the tool itself. For the “nut-busting” torque, a bolt is tightened with a torque wrench calibrated to 1100 ft-lbs, then removed with the tool being tested.
If a wrench can remove a bolt torqued by a torque wrench to 1600Nm, but can only tighten a bolt to 1000Nm, isn’t that a product feature? Or am I missing something?
And how can the ‘nut-busting torque’ and ‘removal torque’ be different?
In effect it simply means the tool has more reverse torque than forward. This insures that anything it tightens it can remove. You see this with the little impacts all the time, they can torque something down that they can’t remove.
dwain wrote:
I still don’t get it. That IR article basically validated nut-busting torque as a real thing:
“Nut-busting” torque refers to the tool’s ability to remove a bolt that has been tightened down using methods other than the tool itself. For the “nut-busting” torque, a bolt is tightened with a torque wrench calibrated to 1100 ft-lbs, then removed with the tool being tested.
If a wrench can remove a bolt torqued by a torque wrench to 1600Nm, but can only tighten a bolt to 1000Nm, isn’t that a product feature? Or am I missing something?
And how can the ‘nut-busting torque’ and ‘removal torque’ be different?
I think you’re exactly right, call it what you want but nut busting or removal torque need to be stated imo. I want detailed specs, if not should I just guess/assume that an impact can remove only what it can fasten.
Nut busting torque tests the tools capability to remove a bolt that’s been tightened using techniques apart from the tool itself. The problem with this is there’s presently no industry wide standard for testing or posting torque rankings, and variables like bolt size and type, thread conditions, air pressure, CFM, etc affect the outcome of the test. This gives manufactures a way to test tools with deceptive techniques that permit them to boost the marketed torque rating, but those techniques won’t give you an accurate portrayal of real working torque. Maybe, you have the ability to get huge number of nut busting torque every now and then, given a particular set of conditions but that is not the real working torque the tool is continuously able to deliver.
^^^ That is a significant problem, M80.
And yet as DarynH says, if a wrench has higher reverse torque than tightening torque I want to know about it, it’s a legitimate feature of the tool.
Having a high reverse torque than tightening torque makes sense. You wouldn’t want a wrench to put bolts in that it couldn’t remove, and it also helps with rusted bolts etc…
Sorry if I’m talking shit, but when I thighten a bolt by hand, as hard as I can, it have always made me wonder why it was easier to remove the bolt.
Could it have something to do with the initial friction, and that you need a fair bit more power to overcome this and turn the actual bolt inn a bit more. (Which would also mean compressing the steel a tiny bit) If this isn’t overcome, the bolt will remain stationary, and would not be thightened any more.
But when removing it, the initial frictin i less, since it will try to pull the bolt back and lighten the load.
Or something like that? 😛
This could mean that the tool itself isn’t delivering more torque in reverse (same RPM).
Does every impact wrench have a higher reverse torque then forward? Is this something inherent in the design of impact wrenches? Anyone wanna test that one? 😀
M80 wrote:
Nut busting torque tests the tools capability to remove a bolt that’s been tightened using techniques apart from the tool itself. The problem with this is there’s presently no industry wide standard for testing or posting torque rankings, and variables like bolt size and type, thread conditions, air pressure, CFM, etc affect the outcome of the test. This gives manufactures a way to test tools with deceptive techniques that permit them to boost the marketed torque rating, but those techniques won’t give you an accurate portrayal of real working torque. Maybe, you have the ability to get huge number of nut busting torque every now and then, given a particular set of conditions but that is not the real working torque the tool is continuously able to deliver.
So the term nut busting isn’t marketing bs but the way they get the numbers could be until everything is standardized.
Every new impact I’ve looked that does have nut busting torque listed so I’m not sure what the complaints are about.
And I doubt we’ll see tool industry standardization any time soon. It took 20 years to get towing ratings standardised for truck manufacturers…don’t think anyone is really worried about tools. It would have to be on all fronts meaning for instance dewalt couldn’t use UWO, Rigid vac’s wouldn’t be rated by horsepower but probably lift, and so on… which is great for consumers but manufacturers won’t be interested in following suit, it’ll cause a ton of competition.
I have it from Makita’s mouth today that the nut-busting torque is 1700Nm!
Thats inline with the highest torque of that tool then.
Cant wait to get it in my hands 🙂 now for a BL recipro and werd all set 🙂
The brushless recip would be nice. I switched to Milwaukee years ago but I always regretted losing the circular and recip from Makita, I always like those better than my Milwaukees. Doesn’t matter now, I’m all over the freakin’ place with different tool lines 😉
How long do you usually have to wait before tools like this officially get its way into europe?
Honestly I always thought tools got out to you guys first in most cases!
I would never use it, but I want it. my baby hulk is good enough to take off tire bolts and that is as far as I go with automobiles.
kornomaniac wrote:
now for a BL recipro and werd all set 🙂
I have also seen pictures and heard about a BL recip which rivals the FUEL, and an 18×2 which is quite superior. But that is from a Makita perspective …
Still, very promising!
dwain wrote:
I have also seen pictures and heard about a BL recip which rivals the FUEL, and an 18×2 which is quite superior. But that is from a Makita perspective …
Still, very promising!
I cant seem to find any pictures of these. Care to post them?
I dont have them, it was in a Makita training/service centre,
dwain wrote:
I dont have them, it was in a Makita training/service centre,
I hope that since the fuel sawzall is a few years old Milwaukee is designing a fuel super sawzall with orbital. They have to know that makita is working on it.
Orbital and AVT system from Makita i want in one 🙂
kornomaniac wrote:
Orbital and AVT system from Makita i want in one 🙂
If they can cut the cord off their sawzall they have now it’ll be a winner.
DarynH wrote:
If they can cut the cord off their sawzall they have now it’ll be a winner.
Doubt that will be possible. Their AVT Recipro is 1500 watts. ( is that 14 amps in american terms? ) So far there aren’t any 18V tools on the market that can deliver thesame power as a 1500 watt (14 amps ? ) corded tool.
kornomaniac wrote:
Doubt that will be possible. Their AVT Recipro is 1500 watts. ( is that 14 amps in american terms? ) So far there aren’t any 18V tools on the market that can deliver thesame power as a 1500 watt (14 amps ? ) corded tool.
I think tool companies are pretty close, with metabos new battery tech we’ll be there soon. If they can run a table saw off their batteries I think a sawzall that powerful wouldn’t be too hard
One of you overseas guys can buy me the 1/2 drive kit and send it to me. I’ll even let you keep the charger. 🙂
Gotta love the thought of an 8 pound tool hanging off of a belt clip, though…
BK13 wrote:
One of you overseas guys can buy me the 1/2 drive kit and send it to me. I’ll even let you keep the charger. 🙂
Gotta love the thought of an 8 pound tool hanging off of a belt clip, though…
Feel free to send me a PM when it’s available in Australia, though the postage would likely kill the prospect…
DarynH wrote:
I think tool companies are pretty close, with metabos new battery tech we’ll be there soon. If they can run a table saw off their batteries I think a sawzall that powerful wouldn’t be too hard
If we assume that they actually got battery-tech that can deliver what they say it can, both in capacity and power. It probably would be pretty close.
Remember, 1500 Watts in this comparison, is just the input power, meaning, if you got a more efficient motor, say a brushless, you could lower this by a 20-30%, and still get the same power output. So in reality, the batteries would “only” need to deliver around 1200W, continuous. Still way too much for a normal 18V battery today, and would barely be achieveable with 2x18V (and would give you less than 9 min. runtime with 2x5Ah).
Metabo’s claim with 87 % more runtime, and 67 % more power would make it pretty darn close. And if you make a few adjustments, giving the tool a bit lower RPM (and use the brushless favorable high torque ratings), you could probably make a close sibling of the tool. Though, I would take Metabo’s numbers with a little grain of salt. 😛
This Impact wrench is badass! I dont even have a huge need for one but it will definitely be added to the hoard!
now…. as for the long awaited, much needed BL recip saw that this thread has started talking about….. COME ON MAKITA!!! I do appreciate and respect that they are obviously taking their time to make it right the first time around instead of releasing a half ass attempt but its time already… i have been lusting for a better Makita cordless recip saw for years now. a lot of times, at least durring demo, it is the only corded tool that comes out of the trailer which makes it such a hassle. I have their current 18v but its just junk..
dwain wrote:
I have also seen pictures and heard about a BL recip which rivals the FUEL, and an 18×2 which is quite superior. But that is from a Makita perspective …
Still, very promising!
do you happen to know anything about it? specs? are you saying that they are coming out with both an 18v and a 18vX2?
No i don’t know any specs yet (what specs are there on a recip apart from SPM? which is quite useless).
Yes Makita are releasing a BL 18V and a 2x18V (not sure if it is brushless).
Pretty cool. I wonder if they will stagger the release at all or release then at realitively the same time..
As far as specs I was really just digging for any info you might have had. SPM. Stroke length. Features like orbit settings, anti vibe. Rafter hook . led . movable shoe…. That kind of stuff.
NERemodeling wrote:
Pretty cool. I wonder if they will stagger the release at all or release then at realitively the same time..
As far as specs I was really just digging for any info you might have had. SPM. Stroke length. Features like orbit settings, anti vibe. Rafter hook . led . movable shoe…. That kind of stuff.
Yeah true. but much like circ saws and grinders, what we really want to know if how much power it has. How much it bogs down under a hard load. The manufacturers don’t tell us this, particularly with cordless tools.
dwain wrote:
Feel free to send me a PM when it’s available in Australia, though the postage would likely kill the prospect…
Just joking, Dwain. I was gonna let you buy it, too. Like a present. LOL
I see 😉
Its nice to see this tool online, but its sad that I csn get it in my market