Quick one: Bit holder with bit, or empty with longer reach?

[Vidar]

This one is a fairly straight question: Would you prefer a bit holder with room for a bit in it when folded? Or a longer reach bit holder with no room for a bit in it while folded? It is basically an extra bit ,and quick use of that one, versus about 8-12mm longer reach but an empty holder.

I know my preference, and I like to think that goes for most people. However I've been wrong or surprised before so I thought I'd just ask some more people

[Douglas]

I vote Reach, in most cases because I'll never carry a bit holder with just one bit.  That is why we have dedicated drvers.  Besides I don't like having to figure out what I'm going to do with the bit I have to take out while I put the new bit in place.  An open bit holder is always ready to set up for the job at hand.

[Aloha]

Longer reach its that simple for me. 

[gerleatherberman]

Depends on the tool and task for me. I don't care for having to fiddle for a bit if I just need a standard phillips or flat head. It is nice if they are already in the tool as fixed implements(whatever tool you like with non-exchangeable drivers if that is all I have) or already stowed in an onboard bit holder(Surge, Wave, etc.). I really dislike bit holders that can't be stowed with bits in them and bit adapters that have to be put on before a different bit can be used. I don't like the Vic ratchet doohicky either.
99% of my usage does not need any real reach(at least not anymore than folding out one handle to make a real screwdriver. I don't fold tools up to use drivers), so driver reach isn't that big of a deal for me, since the tool handle usually gives you enough length. And in the rare occasion I need some bit reach, I have the MUT drivers in my accessory bit holder with the 21pc bit kit for the Wave/Surge/etc. The MUT bits have more length than just about any fixed drivers(of any MT) and bite better than most as well). The LM extension isn't true reach for me, as when I need bit reach, the ridiculous slip-over adapters and ratchet doohickies don't fit in what I need the reach for.
In short, all that rambling done, the ideal kit for me is:
LM with exchangeable bit holder(Surge/Wave/MUT/Signal/etc) with 21pc bit set that basically gives you 40 screwdrivers. Add on the flat and phillips MUT long-drivers that fit the adapter and that setup is perfect for me. I have a phillips and flat head already in the tool(with standard bit that comes with the tool) that I can flip over in a second. If I need an odd driver, I can pop it in the bit holder without an adapter.  If I need to access a screw that is recessed, the MUT bits give you several options.

TL;DR. GLBM is a picky smurf that dislikes doohickies.

[papadan]

I'll vote for the extra reach, just make sure it has a magnet to hold any bit used. I hate holders that allow the bit to fall out.

[Vidar]

Thanks for the replies. 

I see the pros and cons both ways which is why I wanted to ask around a bit. (Pun not intended, but since it is already there.. )

It is a pocket sized tool, and it does carry several bits internally in addition to any possible bit in the holder itself. Bits can be double ended so one bit is effectively two heads.

The current version got the extra range without the bit. Normal flat ones can be readily handled by a separate combined flat/ pry tool. For other use having to fiddle with inserting a bit in the holder is a hassle. Then again the hassle is double if there is a bit in the holder and one wants to use any of the other bits - then it is remove, place the new and then store the previous one. A bit ready for the most common use might make sense for many though.

It is a magnetic holder. The fact that Victorinox doesn't have that is a slight worry - I assume the reason is possible issues with magnetic cards/ keys that might also be in the pocket. I haven't yet gotten around to testing if that is an issue, and if so how big. That might force me to rethink, but for now it is magnetic. 

[gerleatherberman]

Magnetic bit holders are great in clean work environments.  But, at my work, the retention spring is preferred. The magnetic holders pick up steel wool dust like crazy. That stuff then makes its' way into the tool pivots.
I demagnetize my EDC MTs regularly for that reason. The bits being magnetic instead of the bit holder might possibly be a solution.  That way guys like me can buy non-magnetized bits to use in a spring retention bit holder. And the guys who like magnetic bits can use magnetized bits.

I definitely prefer a system that doesn't require a medium(ex. slip on adapters). At least that removes the middle man. When I need something aside from a phillips or flat head, I pull out the default bit and get the one I need. When I am done, I put the odd bit back in the sleeve and pop my default bit back in so I don't have to switch for regular screws. Pulling a two-sided bit out and turning it around is just as easy as folding one driver into the handle and unfolding another.

[Vidar]

Magnetic bit holders are great in clean work environments.  But, at my work, the retention spring is preferred. The magnetic holders pick up steel wool dust like crazy. That stuff then makes its' way into the tool pivots.

I'll add the featue dust collector to the list...  Serisouly, that was interesting though. I personally shy away from steel wool as the plague in order to avoids the rust issues it often introduces with stainless steel. Thus I haven't really experienced any other issues caused by it either. I assume it will still get into most things (?), but of course aggregate even more with magnetics.

I demagnetize my EDC MTs regularly for that reason. The bits being magnetic instead of the bit holder might possibly be a solution.  That way guys like me can buy non-magnetized bits to use in a spring retention bit holder. And the guys who like magnetic bits can use magnetized bits.

Magnetic bits might very well be a possible solution. The downside is not being able to hold standard bits, and likely more expensive as they are rarer. Could be an easy custom option though - remove the magnet, replace bits with magnetic ones. Spring retention requires more space both on the tool and around the screws in use so that is not an option at this stage.

I definitely prefer a system that doesn't require a medium(ex. slip on adapters).

Agreed. An adaptor doesn't make much sense on a pocket tool anyway as it would have to be on the tool all the same.

When I need something aside from a phillips or flat head, I pull out the default bit and get the one I need. When I am done, I put the odd bit back in the sleeve and pop my default bit back in so I don't have to switch for regular screws. Pulling a two-sided bit out and turning it around is just as easy as folding one driver into the handle and unfolding another.

That, and room for the extra bit, is pretty much the argument for having room for a bit already in.

It is of course totally possible to make two different lengths of the holder and just choose, but this is very much a question of keeping parts numbers down and keeping things simple. As it looks now I'll just aim to make sure there is enough room for exchanging either option with the other later on. The cost of that flexibility in terms is quite low so that seems as an pragmatic approach. (Cost being not just monetary but also with regards to weight, space and alternative use of the space).

[gerleatherberman]

I restore antique furniture and other antique items for a living. Several pounds of #00 & #0000 steel wool gets used by my hands every week.
Metal working shavings and dust can be a problem as well. But, that said, most people would be fine using the magnetic system. A good hit with a demagnetization every day or so keeps the wool dust out if the pivots.

I appreciate your consideration of everyone's input.  Can't wait to see what you come up with, Vidar.

[ddogu]

Magnetic bit holders are great in clean work environments.  But, at my work, the retention spring is preferred. The magnetic holders pick up steel wool dust like crazy. That stuff then makes its' way into the tool pivots.
I demagnetize my EDC MTs regularly for that reason. The bits being magnetic instead of the bit holder might possibly be a solution.  That way guys like me can buy non-magnetized bits to use in a spring retention bit holder. And the guys who like magnetic bits can use magnetized bits.

Demagnetize MTs?? Sounds quite interesting, how do you do that? 

[Dutch_Tooler]

This is a fascinating thread... 

Re retention, I'd tend to agree magnetic might not be for everyone (magnetic cards are definitely at risk - heck, my phone, that does not contain magnetic mounts, scrambles these) so some form of spring retention would be the alternative in order to reach a larger user population.
I hear you regarding the extra space required. However, Vic's solution with a sprung retention ball in the bit provides for a space-saving solution. Would that be an option? As an alternative I think one could also design the holder to have a spring... 

Do you have pics of what you are intending to build? 

[gerleatherberman]

Demagnetize MTs?? Sounds quite interesting, how do you do that? 

Those strong electric VHS tape erasers/head demagnetizers work very well. I have an old RadioShack model I use.

I put a thin soft pad between the unit and the multitool while moving the MT around a bit. 5-20 seconds usually works. But, initial demagnetization may take longer. Careful to do this away from electronics, swipe strip cards and old watches.

[Vidar]

Re retention, I'd tend to agree magnetic might not be for everyone (magnetic cards are definitely at risk - heck, my phone, that does not contain magnetic mounts, scrambles these) so some form of spring retention would be the alternative in order to reach a larger user population.
I hear you regarding the extra space required. However, Vic's solution with a sprung retention ball in the bit provides for a space-saving solution. Would that be an option? As an alternative I think one could also design the holder to have a spring... 

Do you have pics of what you are intending to build? 

I assume that is why Victoinox use that system. The cost and number of available bits is the main issue there.

It is certainly possible to have a spring in the holder, but most convential methods take a fair bit of extra space. And space for any- and everything is at a premium, and at this stage of the process within quite defined limits.

I have a few ideas that might be simply enough to implement though. I'll do a few experiments to see if any of those can provide a proper overall holding solution.

I do have both pics and a range of prototypes. I would have loved to discuss pretty much everything openly, but patent and design protection requies no previous publication. There is also the balance of getting feedback versus giving competitors and copycats a headstart at certain features. The quality of the feedback would improve with more given information so having those limitations are quite frustrating at times. I will certainly be happy to show when I'm far enough along that those issues are mostly gone. I look forward to that day!

I appreciate your consideration of everyone's input.  Can't wait to see what you come up with, Vidar.

I truly appreciate everyone's feedback! Making everyone happy with one particular design is impossible, but getting a broader and better view through many really helps when making the priorities and balances necessary. Even more so for a multitool with its many uses and concerns. So thanks for that!