Talk:Drill bit (well)

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Energy

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

PDC vs. tricone performance

The article could be improved by adding a comparison of polycrystalline diamond compact (PDC) bits versus tricone bits -- what factors determine which type is picked for a project, what type of formations they are most efficient at cutting through, etc. I've seen hints that PDC bits are preferred in directional drilling, but nothing that is solid enough to put into the article. There seems to be plenty of information on the history of the tricone bit, due to the connection to the Hughes Tool Company and Howard Hughes, but information on the history of the PDC bit seems a bit nebulous. —Quicksilver^{T @} 20:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why 3 cones better than two?

The article says the tricone bit was an "improvement" over the original two-cone bit's patent. The intervening years undoubtedly saw improvements in the bearings and the cutting surfaces, but exactly how did addition of a third cone help matters? Casey (talk) 20:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]