OJ winch tests.

Bill Beers

Explorer
Bill, the empirical results did put the 12.0 first, as you said.

However, as you know, empirical results are only one facet of overall performance. Two of the 12.0's high empirical finishes resulted from its impressive weight-to-power and weight-to-line-speed ratio. But was we saw, there are legitimate questions as to the reserve strength of the 12.0's construction, so those finishes come with a caveat, and that figured into the conclusions.

On the other hand, look at the poor empirical performance of the Husky. Yet it is inarguably one of the most reliable and durable winches on the market, and deserves more consideration than those low numbers would suggest.

Agreed, on all points. Moab Jeeper did a comprehensive test in 2007: Winches in Hell, and like the OJ test, they had their share of issues come up too. Had the 12.0 been in that test, it would have DNF'd.

I'm looking forward to seeing how the 12.0 does long term. Any chance of seeing how the others do long term? Maybe with Gear Issue 2010 reunion? Not a full test, but more of an "how did it do over a year of use," article.

-Bill
 

Jonathan Hanson

Supporting Sponsor
You bet. Our current plan is to mount the 12.0 on the Wrangler Unlimited, the Husky on an as-yet-to-be-finalized classic project-slash-jack-of-all-trades vehicle, the 8274 on Grendel the Series III, and not sure yet about the Mile Marker and Ramsey. But we'll definitely do a follow-up.
 
T

Totenkopf

Guest
its not a pto, its hydraulic. Even so, while the a pto drive adds some bulk the size of the unit, the planet gears themselves are in a different league and the Werner winch is not rated for much more. The major difference is there are standards the German winches have to be made to, in the US they can print anything on a box as long as they are willing to defend it in a lawsuit. I'll state again that my opinion is that all the domestic winches are rubbish, there is as much marketing as engineering. Why don't they rate them for the worst case pull? Its all marketing, why rate the winch as 8000 when we can rate it for 12000? There are no decent winch makers left in the US for recovery winches because people like warn have more money to spend.

When you are stuck in the middle of nowhere its all about knowing the limits, doesn't matter if the limits are good or bad you just need to know them. The marketing that was printed on the box is not going to help you.

Rob
There are PTO and hydraulic Werner winches, and I don't think there is much sense in a comparison to a 12v. As far as I know, there is not a German 12v winch to comare to the American brands.
 

Antichrist

Expedition Leader
It's interesting, but essentially irrelevant that some magazine successfully used steel cable for a winch test 20 or 30 years ago. The fact is, today we have access to synthetic rope, which is safer, so that's what we used.
Not irrelevant to the statement that "winch tests should be done with synthetic because it's safer". The point was that tests can be safely done with wire rope. It doesn't matter when it was done, provided people haven't forgotten safety precautions.

Yes, we have access to synthetic rope, but that doesn't mean everyone uses it. As I mentioned on another forum, I've been using wire rope professionally starting in '73 as a rigger. Been using it on winches since '74. So I have a fair bit of experience. In the 35 years I've been using winches in a working environment and also for vehicle recovery, I've seen vastly more synthetic lines break (in the few years it's been popular on winches) than I have in the 35 years of using wire rope. Luckily those breaks have been with others around, and not too far off the beaten path.

In a situation where I thought my life might depend on me having consistent reliable performance from my winch line, I'd choose wire rope without reservation, because in that situation wire rope is safer, based on my experience and observations.

Now, I'm not saying you shouldn't have done with with synthetic, I don't have a strong opinion on that. I don't have a problem it being targeted towards the masses.
 
Last edited:

zimm

Expedition Leader
look. the winches dont ship with synth rope and the manual specifically refers to wire. the manual for my truck calls for 10w30 @ ? temp range. it doesnt say NOT to use 5w40, because manuals dont tell you what not to do, they tell you what to do, alteration is up to you and at your risk/fault. if you want a proper test, you dont change the rope if its part of a system thats shipped/recommended. MMM-u-me wire is ok at risk. when car and driver tests a car, they test it with the tires that ship with it, not a tire that performs better or worse. THIS is the reason they do it that way, but, that magazine is 50 years old and im sure it had the same comments/mistakes while growing into what it is today.

big deal, because that error was more useful than the truth, as is often the case with tests. it answered MY question on the effect of thinner ropes on the drums. ive been batting around swapping out the wire for some time, but i havent been able to justify the cost. i think ill keep the wire on the belleview until i see someone else beta test it.

in the end i think warn built a minimalist weight system that needs to be adhered to as a system w/o strict enough warnings that you gotta stick to the system. bad bad.
 

zimm

Expedition Leader
My example is if you compare a Werner 20,000lb winch to a 16,000 warn then the warn looks like a little kids toy and weighs probably a quarter of the Werner. There is no comparison in performance, the Werner would literally winch you around the world pull by pull without giving up.

Rob


oddly, thats what i was thinking this morning. theres not enough weight hanging off of the front end of my truck, i need to add 300 more pounds of pto iron that wont pull me from the soup when i drown the distributor.

sometimes too much, is too much.
 

BajaTaco

Swashbuckler
The article was a bit ambiguous on this point. Chris mentioned that Warn believed the mount was the culprit and Scott mentioned that the Warn wouldn't be a bad option if using their mount, leading readers (at least me) to believe the Ramsey mount was the culprit or at least the contributing factor?

Chris mentioned earlier that the winch case broke, pulling the winch forward and damaging the mount, but if the winch deck became warped our tweak either by the current testing or the winch previous, it could have led to the cracked case, chicken or egg.

Again though, great article I re-read it last night and really enjoyed the detail and the test procedures designed. :cool:

Those are good observations that you've made.

Various locations of the Ramsey plate were measured using a micrometer, and even after the Warn failure, the horizontal mounting surface of the plate was not deformed. The only thing damaged was the front apron where the Warn fairlead mangled it after the winch case broke. Granted, those measurements were static, but I certainly wouldn't be making them while the winch was being load verified :) So here is my answer to your question:

We simply don't have enough data to prove if the Ramsey plate was or was not behaving any differently under a dynamic loading situation during the Warn test vs. the Ramsey test (or the Mile Marker test for that matter), but we are reasonably confident that it did not. As noted in the article, the Warn plate was substantially different in construction and design. Based on my observations I'd say that when compared to the Ramsey plate under a dynamic loading scenario, the Warn plate would be the less likely of the two to experience any micro-level changes in structure under load. And that is likely why Scott made the comment that you referenced above.
 

cruiseroutfit

Supporting Sponsor: Cruiser Outfitters
Those are good observations that you've made.

Various locations of the Ramsey plate were measured using a micrometer, and even after the Warn failure, the horizontal mounting surface of the plate was not deformed. The only thing damaged was the front apron where the Warn fairlead mangled it after the winch case broke. Granted, those measurements were static, but I certainly wouldn't be making them while the winch was being load verified :) So here is my answer to your question:

We simply don't have enough data to prove if the Ramsey plate was or was not behaving any differently under a dynamic loading situation during the Warn test vs. the Ramsey test (or the Mile Marker test for that matter), but we are reasonably confident that it did not. As noted in the article, the Warn plate was substantially different in construction and design. Based on my observations I'd say that when compared to the Ramsey plate under a dynamic loading scenario, the Warn plate would be the less likely of the two to experience any micro-level changes in structure under load. And that is likely why Scott made the comment that you referenced above.

That makes complete sense. Thanks for the update and great job! :sombrero:
 

Bill Beers

Explorer
We simply don't have enough data to prove if the Ramsey plate was or was not behaving any differently under a dynamic loading situation during the Warn test vs. the Ramsey test (or the Mile Marker test for that matter), but we are reasonably confident that it did not.

Chris,

when testing winch mounts/bumpers for deflection, Warn uses, (and I assume the others as well,) an indcator set w/magnitic base, similar to the one pictured below. Place the indicator on a part the won't move, like the grill, and zero it. Read it at different loads verified by load cell up to the max load. After you unload it, whatever is left on the plus side of zero is your permanent deformation.

tylertool_2038_111048201


No reason you should have done this as it was a winch test, not a winch mount test.

-Bill
 

luk4mud

Explorer
I am continually amazed at the brand loyalty everyone shows toward winches. I don't think I sense that same brand loyalty toward any other aspect of a rig, except maybe the rig brand itself.

I own a Superwinch, different model than in the test. It has served me very well and has "won" at least 1 similar test I am aware of. I was attracted by the combination of low power draw, build quality, warranty and price. Would I be equally happy with a Warn, Tabor, Ramsey? I bet I would.

Synthetic line- thank you for using it in the test, as it represents a real world option that I don't think I have seen employed in a winch test before.
 

toyrunner95

Explorer
The article was a bit ambiguous on this point. Chris mentioned that Warn believed the mount was the culprit and Scott mentioned that the Warn wouldn't be a bad option if using their mount, leading readers (at least me) to believe the Ramsey mount was the culprit or at least the contributing factor?

Chris mentioned earlier that the winch case broke, pulling the winch forward and damaging the mount, but if the winch deck became warped our tweak either by the current testing or the winch previous, it could have led to the cracked case, chicken or egg. QUOTE]

That was the point I was getting at. And again I am not in complete disagreement with the tests. The way they were conducted was perfectly reasonable, in fact more reasonable than most other magazines! A simple anchor and dead weight test is how they should have all been done (i.e. other magazines not OJ) I am not against synthetic line at all, in fact if I had the trust in it I would probably buy one. I just think that if you are going to test the winches for capability they should be on the same playing ground. Now I know Mr. Hanson just read that statement and his Monday morning quarter back comment is going to come back so I'll keep explaining. I mean that the mounting plates make a difference, a 9k or 9500k is not supposed to be under a 12k winch. Correct? I mean since you are talking about safety and how safe synthetic line is don't you think the mount should be safe as well?

Here is my THOERY (its a theory because I can''t prove it) This depends entirely on the order if the winch tests. If the 12k was last in line for testing the 12k may have warped the mount just a fraction of an inch, just enough to cause too much stress on one part of the winch causing it to crack and break the housing. Again its just a theory and WARN admitted that there may have been a defect in the cast of the housing.

Mr. Hanson: I do have a lot of winching experience and I am not a Monday morning quarterback and thank you very much for that bash on my knowledge about the PTO and hydraulic. I have only seen a PTO driven hydraulic winch, thus my thinking was that they were the same. After some research I found that there is a difference. Hence the qualifier "Right?" after my post.

I know some of these points have been addressed while i was typing this to bare with me.
 
Last edited:

toyrunner95

Explorer
And my thoery is shot to hell, thanks chris for updating me. I was typing while you posted.

Brand loyalty is what keeps ford alive. Its something that people cling to. I really dont feel "loyal" to a brand. Its just one I trust, if i find something better, I'll go with that.
 

Antichrist

Expedition Leader
I have only seen a PTO driven hydraulic winch, thus my thinking was that they were the same.
I've never seen a hydraulic winch that wasn't powered by a PTO unit, though I suppose you could have one driven by an electric hydraulic pump, but I don't think it would be very effective. Even a PS pump driven milemarker starts life as a PTO, since a the PS pump is a PTO unit.
They are different though, in that a PTO driven winch has a mechanical linkage between the power source and the winch, while a hydraulic winch uses, well.....hydraulics.
 
Last edited:

Jonathan Hanson

Supporting Sponsor
Toyrunner95,

You began this thread by setting yourself up as a winching expert (which you might very well be), then criticizing our procedures on several levels. That's fine. Then Scott logically and reasonably addressed every one of your criticisms. When you come back afterwards and simply repeat your first "gotta tell ya, there were problems" line, you'd better be prepared for some pointed cross-examination. You'll note I waited until after the second time you had done so before I entered the discussion.

I have absolutely no issues with your lack of knowledge of PTO versus hydraulic winches - unless you persist in disregarding considerate responses to your comments. I think between Scott and Chris and myself we've done so pretty thoroughly by now, don't you?
 

Antichrist

Expedition Leader
I am continually amazed at the brand loyalty everyone shows toward winches.
Count me out on brand loyalty.
I own, in order of purchase:
Braden (transfer case PTO driven) - came on vehicle
Warn 8274 - bought new
Koenig King 100 (transfer case PTO driven) - came on vehicle, plan to buy another
Ramsey Platinum 9000 - bought used
Ramsey RE10000 - bought used
Warn 8274 - bought used
 

Forum statistics

Threads
185,535
Messages
2,875,628
Members
224,922
Latest member
Randy Towles
Top