Talk:List of screw drives/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Robertson use in the United States.

Robertson screws are used extensively in the manufactured housing industry and in recreational vehicles with wood framed bodywork. 66.232.94.33 (talk) 07:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. These heads are not uncommon in the USA anymore. They are often used on deck screws. To my knowledge, they were never common here until within the last 15 or 20 years. Before that, they were an unusual find that would make you swear because you didn't have a driver for them. Today most of us have indexable driver bits for them, and an indexable screwdriver in which to put the bits. Twenty years ago, only tool geeks were kitted out thus, AFAICR. But today, anyone who doesn't live with their head up their butt has a set of driver bits that includes square/Robertson. — ¾-10 03:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the "Robbie" is becoming more popular in the USA because it is self-holding and doesn't strip like the philips. That's two time saving reasons for contractors to use them.

Also I was looking at the patents and nowhere is #00 Orange mentioned. Also the #3 is always listed as for #12, & #14 screws, never as #12 & Larger... The #4 Black is for #18 (alias 5/16" diameter) screws and larger screws. The #4 is about as common, and as official, as the #00...

patents# CA 2318666 http://brevets-patents.ic.gc.ca/opic-cipo/cpd/eng/patent/2318666/summary.html?query=Robertson+screw&start=1&num=50&type=basic_search

Just my 2 cents, but I say add the #4 Black, and find some Canadian citations like the Canadian patent office (link above). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.83.59 (talk) 20:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a newly introduced drive which is similar to a robertson, called LOX. I have bought and used these but did not find information about them anywhere but their website.Iamscottevil (talk) 16:51, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Pentalobe

I can't find the pentalobe head, even though Apple uses it. Shouldn't there be some background on this current topic on Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.79.166.173 (talk) 18:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

It's called an pentalobular head http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentalobular_screw iFixit has released a Pentalobular Screw Driver.

arst technica ( http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2011/01/apple-screwing-new-iphones-out-of-simple-diy-repair.ars ) mentions another kind of screw termed "pentalobe". it is supposed to be very new and used by apple to keep people from opening iphones and macbooks (as there seem to be no screwdrivers on the market).--77.181.250.254 (talk) 12:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Pentalobular - Torx TS?

Is this not merely the fairly new Torx TS, wrench bits here for example? Globbet (talk) 00:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

No, the "spline" is a different shape. Torx TS can be (and frequently are, in Apple chop-shops) used to pull batteries in MacBooks. However the true Pentalobe is a nasty design with very sharp arrises between the lobes. If you breathe heavily on them, especially with a Torx TS, they round off. Horrid things, but probably advantageous as a security screw.

Incidentally, they're called "Pentalobe", not pentalobular. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

This entire article is centered about Apples use of this screw... not a single word about its patent being applied for in 1974, its history of deployment, units produced, manufacturing companies, alloys in common and special version etc etc etc... i don't give a rats behind what Apple Inc. happen to be using this screw for.. that deserves a foot note at best —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.185.112.203 (talk) 11:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any cite for a 1974 patent? Don't confuse this with patents on a pentalobular screw shape for a self-forming thread. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

To 90.185.112.203: Well, that could well be, but hey, this is Wikipedia—if you build it, they will come; and if you don't build it, maybe no one else will; maybe they can't. Most of us have no knowledge of the particular topic you're referring to, so we can't provide the content that you're seeking ... sounds like you yourself are the one to add it here, if you're able! As Andy said, a ref would be in order (perhaps from Google Patents) to show where the info came from ... — ¾-10 18:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Security Screw Removal

The security screw section seems to imply with screw extractor link that security screws must be drilled out. There are security screw removal tools similar to this one that act on the edge of the security screw where one can apply torque away from the center of the screw. With a typical flathead driver contact is first made very close to the center of the screw; the toque to remove the screw is small, while the force pushing the driver out of the slot is large. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.160.57 (talk) 01:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you referring to One way screws? Wizard191 (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

PHR bits

I have recently acquired a set of interchangeable bits from Teng Tools (17239, TM028) which has two cross-head bits marked PHR2 (the Philips are marhed PH2 and the pozi PZ2 as is conventional). They appear to have parallel (non-cam-out) profoles, and a different tip angle to the other two. The catalogue lists them as 'grabber' heads.

Any idea what they are?--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 06:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

On this page they are in the left hand block of 9, below the 1/4" square adaptor--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 06:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

They appear to be "Phillips Reduced Diameter" and intended for a particular type of plasterboard (drywall) screw used in the USA. (Plasterboard in the UK tends to be hung with adhesive or nails, and the joints taped over). The bit fits inside a screw-holding device (Hence the "grabber" nomenclature) which aso serves to limit insertion depth. See ( http://www.boschtools.com/Products/Accessories/Pages/BoschAccessoryDetail.aspx?pid=172 ) --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 21:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Good deal. Can you add your findings to the article? Thanks! Wizard191 (talk) 13:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Alas, I can find no quotable references, only a few tool catalogue pages, which are notoriously transient. If I come across a proper ref from a board or screw maker, or an instruction manual, I shall do so.--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a Reed or a Reed & Prince head. Similar to Phillips, but thinner and flatter sided. They're a US design, but then so is the idea of specific screws for plasterboard (drywall). That's the only place I've seen them, in the UK. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Other Phillips profiles

Phillips list other drive profiles on their front page. I've come across Phillips2 heads but never a driver.

Should this lot be in the list?--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 06:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd say so, as long as you can find a secondary reference for them. Wizard191 (talk) 15:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

SPAX/Pozidriv confusion

The image accompanying the Pozidriv shows fasteners that are labeled SPAX. The Phillips/square section indicates they are also called SPAX. This confuses me.

I was looking at this page to see if I could lessen my frustration assembling IKEA furniture by using a better screwdriver and I saw that they use Pozidriv; it would be helpful for my quest to be able to learn more here. --70.108.246.224 (talk) 20:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

None of them are called Spax. Spax is a manufacturer, they make many types. As Spax is also quite a high-quality maker, they headstamp their screws with their own brand name. The screws pictured (to restate this yet again) are Pozidriv, made by Spax. I know of no head designs that are known by a "Spax" or "SPAX" name (which is no proof there isn't one, but please bring a citation if you're going to claim this). They do use trademarks like SPAX-M, but all those that I'm familiar with refer to thread or point profiles, not head shapes. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

To add to the confusion, I believe that while in Europe Spax screws are pozidrive, the ones I purchased in North America used a combined phillips/square, branded as "Unidrife" for Square and Cross recesses. The #8 ones I have are sized as "Ph2 + Sq2". But, I have no source for this other than the boxes of screws. Pnorman (talk) 23:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Changed spanner drive tool

The drive tool for spanner screws was listed as spanner wrench. I changed it to "spanner driver or spanner screwdriver." They both work on the same concept but the wrenches are used for pulleys, sprockets and the like. Things much larger than individual screws. The citation linked to the McMaster-Carr catalog which carries both tools. I just edited the citation to the other page in the same catalog. Regards, TechMaker (talk) 19:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

No Standardized nomenclature?

We need to standardize the nomenclature. Like what are wings, flukes, shafts, shanks, points, tips, bits, screws, bolts etc? (Did I miss some?) (Also Pozidriv has confusing bit configuration & lingo.)

Whats'a flank?

"Phillips drivers have an intentional angle on the flanks and rounded corners so they will cam out of the slot before a power tool will twist off the screw head. The Pozidriv screws and drivers have straight sided flanks."

--68.127.87.212 (talk) 18:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)Doug Bashford

Agreed, short descriptions of the vocab used in this article would be helpful for a lot of readers.Beefcake6412 (talk) 18:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The term "flathead screwdriver" just looks wrong.

I've been an electronic technician all my life, but also have worked on small precision mechanisms, such as the Flexowriter®. I'm now 75, but cannot recall ever reading or hearing about "flathead" screwdrivers until recently. The cited reference (4) does not look authoritative to me. "Flat-blade[d]", surely, but "flathead"? Screw head shapes are another matter; flathead screws have long been with us, and are not going away. To resolve doubts, looking through tool catalogs from reputable companies should clarify this.

For one, the tip of a screwdriver is not its head! I just checked a 1994 catalog from McMaster-Carr, a company as professional as one is likely to find. Its index lists so many different types of screwdrivers that I didn't count, only estimated that they offer about 65 types (surely not 65 drive styles, though!) I'm close to deleting the term "flathead", explaining that that term applies to screw heads (which can have any style of recess), also saying that the tip of a screwdriver is not its "head". I'd also point out that such usage has become a common error (like "piston" for a cylinder assembly, or "canned air", an irresponsible and bogus term creating misunderstanding that could kill, concisely). However, I'd welcome counter-arguments, even if the cited reference was apparently written by somebody who didn't really know his subject. Wikipedia really should be strictly correct, factually. Regards, Nikevich (talk) 08:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you're right about this, "flatblade screwdriver" is clear and a common usage, whereas "flathead screwdriver" seems to be illogical and a relatively rare misnomer. -- Reify-tech (talk) 00:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I missed this talk thread when it started. I'd say there's a logical path, in terms of linguistic description, by which people's brains put together the term "flathead screwdriver"—but I'd also admit that it doesn't stand up to the careful usage of linguistic prescription, for the very reason you mention (there's a certain dangling kind of nature to it, I'd say). The latter fact (not standing up in careful usage) is most likely why it has seldom if ever been allowed to stand in edited published material (including catalogs)—a threshold that has been often circumvented in the past decade by the rise of the Web, which decoupled the concepts of "published" and "edited" to a greater degree than in the pre-Web era, when the former usually implied the latter by default. The logical path, descriptively, is simply that if you drive a Phillips [head] screw with a Phillips screwdriver, or a Torx [head] screw with a Torx driver, then, one supposes by analogy, you drive a flathead screw with a "flathead screwdriver". I do submit that, at least in my region of the U.S., most people's ears would not balk at "flathead screwdriver"—although the ears of careful-usage types would be an exception to that. In the end there's no real "victory" of either description or prescription on Wikipedia—both are reported to the reader—but Wikipedia does (rightly) aspire to clarity of writing, and thus the Wikipedia Manual of Style does have a place for some standards for carefulness of usage. Thus, I would agree with you that maybe we ought to either not mention the term "flathead screwdriver", or else mention it but also briefly identify it as not-preferred-usage (I tend to lean toward the latter). But either way, always good to see contributors who care enough to think critically about such topics. — ¾-10 02:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

This may be a UK term, it may be an archaic term, but "flathead" and "crosshead" are very commonly used in the UK, even today. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, at least those UK usages have a certain internal logic when described that way. It looks like there ought to be a brief usage note describing UK vs. US terminology. The use of "flathead" to describe screwdriver blades vs. the heads of screws (as in "countersunk" heads) should be noted as well. -- Reify-tech (talk) 12:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that UK use for "flathead screwdriver" came about in two steps: firstly the introduction of crosshead screws and the novel need to distinguish two different forms of screwdriver (previously there had simply been "screwdrivers") and secondly a tendency, perhaps from the same cause, to describe these as "screwdrivers for flathead screws" rather than implying that the screwdriver itself had some sort of "flat head". Andy Dingley (talk) 18:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "flathead screwdriver". The correct term is "slotted" or "standard". You may wish to also reference https://makezine.com/2016/10/31/quick-tip-know-your-screwdrivers-hint-its-not-called-a-flathead/. --KitchM (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Layout messed-up / Braun Toothbrush picture "out of scope"

I believe the toothbrush picture:

• is out of scope here; it does not illustrate the point anymore than the svg symbols.
• Is messign up the layout underneath and on the left of it (alignment of titles)

I removed it once but it was restored...don't want to start an edit war....please advise. --MarmotteiNoZ 23:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Imperial Versus Metric (SI)

All throughout this article and a lot like it we have imperial leading with SI in parentheses in some places and SI leading with imperial in the brackets and then in some places you will just find imperial. How are we going to standardise this? Surely it becomes almost incomprehensible when you start measuring things in imperial when they come out as 0.079"?

In any case, make it what you will but it is something that is inconsistent throughout this and other articles and I ould not mind knowing the correct course of action. Pinothyj (talk) 02:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Recommendation: Metric first, in nearly-all instances

I'd respectfully suggest that, even in English-language articles, that metric be given first, followed by imperial, unless a well-established worldwide standard long known by imperial measurement would look a bit silly when converted to metric. I expect that there are not many such instances. The great majority of the world is metric, and we should accept that. Btw, we also should be aware of using too many digits when converting approximate dimensions. (The otherwise-very-good computer/electronics dealer TigerDirect gives shipping weight to four decimal places! The two least-significant digits are almost always zero.) I've repeatedly chided them about that, and never received any feedback. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikevich (talk • contribs) 28 nov 2011 09:42‎ (UTC)

Addition of TORX Plus fasteners

I did not see TORX Plus mentioned in the article. They are prevalent in the automotive industry; I don't know about any other applications. The "teeth" are thicker with a more rounded edge. They are probably designed to reduce breakage of the driver. I've found that very few automotive technicians are even aware these fasteners exist, in spite of the fact that a standard TORX driver fits too loosely and increases the chances of damaging the fastener.Profcbsjr (talk) 22:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see Torx Plus as more than an additional note to Torx in this article. However Torx is a very thin article at present and we can certainly use this expansion over there. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with User:Andy Dingley. The company that produces Torx makes a lot of confusingly similar variants; it would be good to explain them at the Torx article, and just mention the existence of variants here, with a pointer to the other article. -- Reify-tech (talk) 00:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Tables: Fastener size?

The sidebar tables for various types give 'fastener size', with numbers, but no indication of what units these numbers are in. So this doesn't seem like very meaningful information. Can somebody add some units to these tables, please? T-bonham (talk) 02:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

They are arbitrary size designations without units, similar to a "Size 8" shoe or dress. --Reify-tech (talk) 03:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I've added a clarifying sentence to the article, which I hope will explain this to other readers --Reify-tech (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

JIS replaced by DIN 5260-PH?

It appears that JIS is out & replaced by DIN 5260-PH? I don't know how equivalent they are, or just close enough, or if perhaps its similar to Phillips.

http://www.vesseltools.com/hand-tools/screwdrivers/view-all-products.html :

Q: Why VESSEL's screwdrivers are not labeled “JIS”?

As you might know, VESSEL is the oldest screwdriver manufacturer in Japan, and made a contribution to set a JIS standard. We do follow JIS standard for cross point screwdrivers. Because the technology to manufacture screwdrivers in Japan had already become above a certain level, JIS recognition system for screwdrivers became extinct in 2008. So there is no authorized JIS manufacturer now, and we therefore cannot print "JIS" mark on our screwdrivers.

And this: https://www.rjrcooltools.com/vessel.cfm :

Important: Vessel is making the 1/4" drive bits we carry to DIN Standard #5260. They are NOT true JIS per se. However, we have tested them extensively here and have determined that due to the tight corner radius on these bits (a key ingredient differentiating JIS from Phillips standards), they fit JIS fasteners that you will encounter perfectly.

A search for DIN 5260 shows many screwdriver manufacturers selling 'Phillips type' screwdrivers meeting DIN 5260. --Bradrh (talk) 22:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Phillips and Frearson mixed up in the image?

I suspect there is an error. The text says "The Frearson screw drive, also known as the Reed and Prince screw drive, is similar to a Phillips but the Frearson has a more pointed 75° V shape." But the image next to this claims that the pointed driver is Phillips. Jussi Hirvi (talk) 06:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the phrase "but the Frearson has a more pointed 75° V shape" (even though it's in the link provided). The article Screwdriver says it's 45°, and the Frearson should be the one whose tip is sharp rather than flat as a Phillips is. The link [1], even though it talks about 75°, shows an illustration from the Phillips patent, and this corresponds to the one with a sharper V and a flat tip. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 10:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I've restored it. The 75° overall tip angle for the R&P as being sharper than the 90° of the Phillips or Pozi is well-known. WP isn't a source for WP anyway, and I have no idea what "the bit has 45° flukes and a sharper, pointed end." means. The end is indeed sharper (75 not 90) and pointed (not blunted like the Phillips and the even blunter Pozi). As to "45° flukes" though, this is unclear. It certainly doesn't mean a 45° tip angle and not even a 90°. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

But look at the illustration, Andy. It shows the Frearson as having a 90° overall tip. The figure of 45° obviously refers to half of this. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 10:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Illustrations on WP aren't sources, but just try copying the image File:Frearson vs Phillips.JPG, pasting it into a draw program and then rotating it by 45°. Now draw a right-angled box over it and note the difference.

I've never seen nor heard of Frearson. But Reed & Prince (along with JST) cost me a couple of new screwdrivers to get ones that fit exactly, over my usual Pozidrive and Phillips sets. R&P are well known as 75°, just a noticeable bit more acute than the others. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right that it's less than 90°. I find 82°. But in any case it's more than the Phillips. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 10:19, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Original research

Far too many examples of use here appear to either be speculative or based on personal observation. I'm going to undo this revert unless there's a convincing reason for that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

"Far too many" When disparaging others' edits, please be more specific and at least identify the ones you're complaining about. You could also work to improve the encyclopedia instead by searching for some of these references yourself. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I will tag them individually if need be. Let it be noted that this was yet another move by AD to waste my time and disparage my contributions. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

No-one is asking you to sprinkle your superfluous unconstructive tags everywhere. Feel free to do some editing instead. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Bug or feature?

This is bug of language selector on this article? http://rghost.ru/40359943/image.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.126.111.179 (talk) 13:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Torx tradename

Several of the items refer to the trademark holder or originator of the design. Torx does not, although the individual article does. Should this list have all the trademarks identified? or none? --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 08:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I go for "all" rather than "none". A mention of Torx's proprietary origins should be added in this article. It doesn't need to give the whole story; that can be found in the Torx article. But a mention would be in order. — ¾-10 17:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

12 point heads

Seems like the article should mention 12 point screw heads.

https://www.google.com/search?q=12+point+screws&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=x0F&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=DDeRUPLdDonUigLK94CIBA&ved=0CEYQsAQ&biw=1664&bih=903

--Davefoc (talk) 14:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. — ¾-10 17:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)