Advocacy & Safety - Abus vs. Kryptonite vs. OnGuard

Does anyone have any reasonably objective opinions as to the qualities of the following U-locks:

1. Abus Granit X-Plus 54
2. Kryptonite New York STD
3. OnGuard Brute STD 5001

As I've read about them, these three locks are of comparable size and quality, and all are made by the world's top manufacturers of bicycle U-locks. I'm sure any one will provide respectable security for a bicycle, but, as prices do vary (it seems the OnGuard is the cheapest, followed by the Kryptonite, with Abus being most costly), I wonder if anyone has any feelings as to how they actually compare with one another (or if just trying to such a comparison is simply futile).

Thanks.

I paint over the brand name on my lock, its not like it matters much what it says on it.

I've got an Onguard. Some people report problems with the keyways of these, but I haven't experienced any problem with it. But I don't leave it out in the snow, either. As far as the lock mechanisms go, they're all pretty much as pick-proof as you're going to find in a commercial lock.

IMHO, anyone equipped to saw, cut, torch or pry through one of them would be equipped well enough to defeat any of them given 15 seconds +/-. I just can't imagine a theif going up to a bike with an Abus, for example, taking a close look then turning around, scratching his head and exclaiming in frustration, "Dang the luck, I thought it was a Kryptonite!! I guess I'll skip this one".

Bottom line: Your locking technique and the location where you lock your bike are far more important than any minor differences between high quality locks.

It seems, of th three locks I mention, the Brute has the thickest shackle (16.8mm, diameter), followed by the New York (16mm, diameter). The Abus is listed, on the manufacturer's Web site (http://www.abus.de/us/main.asp?ScreenLang=us&sid=9728509781842580106200968160220247&select=0104b01&artikel=4003318229756), as having a shackle thickness of 13mm. I'm sure the shape isn't perfectly square (the edges must be a bit rounded), but, nonetheless, the lock ends up in one of two positions: If a side is 13mm, the diagonal (cross-section) of the square is ~18.38mm; if the diagonal is 13mm, any side is just 9.19mm. I suppose this makes a significant difference, as "levels" of U-lock security seem to be separated by just a couple of millimeters of shackle-thickness (among other things, of course).

IMHO, anyone equipped to saw, cut, [] or pry through one of them would be equipped well enough to defeat any of them given 15 seconds +/-.

[] mine.

I doubt anyone can break a Brute, Fahgettaboudit, or Granit with only a hacksaw, bolt cutters or a crowbar or other prying tool (this is where high-end locks excel over standard ones). It's an angle grinder and various other power tools that change the equation.

degnaw is right, but I was thinking saw, cut or pry with power saw, angle grinder or jack. Whatever method that could be used on one, would most likely work on the others given a little more or less time. The difference between the three locks would probably be more about how the mechanism & keyways stood up to day to day abuse and weather extremes. If you're equipped to break a Brute, you can break a Granit or fahgettaboudit.

I, myself, placed a bit of stock in the video to which you've provided a link, but it's simply advertising. The clips were created by *****, itself a manufacturer of chain-locks: http://www.*****-security-chains.co.uk/. The Kryptonite Fahgettaboudit chain has 11mm links; the ***** IV has 19mm ones: more metal means more strength — we knew that. I guess I could make a video in which I go through the ***** IV with an angle-grinder (if a pair of three-foot bolt-cutters is a "hand-tool," so is a small battery-powered tool), then market my 28mm-links chain as "truly secure."

If the point is simply, "nothing is unbreakable," very well — point noted.

Why is A-L-M-A-X asterisked out...?