I like the ranking system you put in place. I think it should be the start of an international picking rating system. I suggest calling it the "LPL scale" of pickability. Even though I would suggest adding another 5 points for locks that not only need a specialized pick but rather a "unique" self-made pick or tool. Since these would be unpickable for anyone without picking and machining skills.
I'm glad you clarified that, the short keypin issue with the Americans was playing on my mind. I note also that all of these locks have ball bearing locking mechanisms, are there any spring loaded shimable locks that have removable cores?
Thanks. Not shimable locks in this group. I had an Abus 80ti/40 in the group which is shimable, but I cut it after I decided to limit it to removable core locks.
First, thanks for your so enjoyable and informative channel ! I agree with your new system point except for the anti-drill pins - we are talking about non-destructive manipulations, after all ;-) More seriously, the problem I see about taking anti-drill pins into account is that you should then take all other anti-drill techniques, and more largely all destructive counter measures as well. It would go far beyond the topic of this serie, and it is often more or less already done and indicated by the manufacturer. On the other hand, I miss that you don't take in account the tolerance and the feedback. I understand that would be difficult to measure accurately, and it probably would be a subjective rating, but those are imo quite important features when picking a lock. Also, would it make sense to take all the different springs into account ?
Thanks for your thoughtful comment. You are 100% correct that the anti drill pins do not affect picking. Here's why I included them anyway. In these small padlock cores, the anti-drill pins usually take up space that you would normally have a security pin. As such, if I did not give points for anti-drill pins, I would end up penalizing locks for increasing physical security. That's backward IMO. So if that was my concern, why did I give double points for security anti-drill pins? Well, once I started down the path of giving points to hardened pins, I needed to be consistent. As for tolerances and feedback, again, you are correct... but only in the abstract. This rating scale was designed for this group of locks. None of them have any significant advantage in tolerances. Finally, with a couple inapplicable exceptions, I general don't find that springs make a big difference in picking difficulty... particularly in factory-pinning locks (as opposed to challenge locks).
Thank you very much for the explanations :-), it totally makes sense to me now. Can't wait for the rest of the series (not mentioning all the others!), I *love* aluminum padlocks ;-) You're the best. Seriously. Again, thanks !
I see two "problems". Imagine a lock will all steel security pins and threaded chambers, but is by-passable. It would get a high score, but all the security never comes into play. The lack of by-pass protection should take away all the points gained from the security pins and chambers I would say. Imagine another lock will all standard steel pins and one will all security pins. These two would get the same score, but one is much easier to pick than the other. One way to counter this is giving grades in factors of 10. E.g. 1 point for anti drill pin, 10 points for security pins, 100 points for threaded chambers and so on. What do you think?
All of your points are valid, BUT, this scoring system is designed specifically for this group of locks. There are no locks (i) with spinners, (ii) that are shimable (they are all ball bearing), (iii) that have all steel security pins, but are bypassable, or (iv) that have all standard steel pins. What I think you are doing is trying to create a more general system for rating locks. That's a bold task. Offhand, if I were doing that, I'd be inclined to issue separate scores for pure pick resistance and everything else... and even then, I'd probably compile sub scoring categories.
I see. So you would never mix the points for a general purpose scoring? It would be great to have a good and fair point system and lock pickers would agree on. Each lock company have their own biossed ratings =)
Jasmine Lognnes I wouldn't say "never," but it would have to be structured very differently. If I was looking to translate a lock into a single number, I would define several categories, each of which would be rated on the same scale (arbitrarily, let's just say 1-10)... then the overall rating would be the lowest of the sub-category scores. As I write this, I realize that what I'm proposing isn't too dissimilar to the CEN ratings (but my would incorporate pick resistance).
How very Lawyerly of you! Two videos in and you're already making amendments to the very rules and pointing criteria you yourself drafted.....I see whats going on here ;-)
If I was being lawyerly, I would have explained why these were always the rules... by doing something like calling these changes "supplements and clarifications." :-P
You would be surprised how many locks make their way to me with superglue in them. I have a large jar of acetone to soak the lock in when that happens.
Lock Noob I buy (or get for free) bulk broken padlocks from locksmiths... they are the ones who run into the issue. They usually cut the shackle. If I can get the core working, I'll restore the lock with a new shackle. :-)
![[311] 40mmAL Series: Point System Supplemented and Clarified](/img/logo.svg){kind=logo}
