Fun fact: Torx screwdrivers are compatible with Torx Plus screws, but Trox Plus screwdrivers are only compatible with Torx screws that are one size larger

    • BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works
      0·
      4 months ago

      LOL sure, good one… Only time that square abomination is the answer is if the question is “what do you get if you put a toddler in charge of designing a poor knockoff unbrako head?”

      TEAM TORX REPRESENT!

    • renzev@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
      0·
      4 months ago

      I’m not canadian, so I don’t have a lot of experience with robertson. But from the limited experience that I do have, I would rate it 10/10.

      What would you recommend for smaller screws (e.g. for electronics)? As far as I know, there aren’t smaller sizes of robertson like there are with torx?

      • brap@lemmy.world
        0·
        4 months ago

        Pozidrive has real nice engagement and doesn’t cam out like Phillips does. And JIS drivers do a better job in Phillips than Phillips ones do.

        • RubberElectrons@lemmy.world
          0·
          4 months ago

          Yeah but JIS for screws/bolts has been abandoned by the Japanese govt as of… 2005?

          My JIS screwdrivers are fantastic, not easy to torque out on a regular Phillips screw. Stick with the “vessel” brand.

          • Noel_Skum@sh.itjust.works
            0·
            4 months ago

            I’ve driven tens of thousands of pozidrive 2/3 screws into timber with an impact driver. For whatever reason my experience is the diametric opposite of yours. Big up the Pozidrive massive.

            • Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee
              0·
              4 months ago

              It’s probably because of the impact driver. The bit seats back into the bottom of the slot between every impact. This doesn’t happen with normal drivers.

              • Noel_Skum@sh.itjust.works
                0·
                4 months ago

                People (try to) use a drill driver as opposed to an impact driver? Wow. I now understand why they could have a grim experience… thanks.

        • Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee
          0·
          4 months ago

          Philips doesn’t cam out that easily either. Most people just don’t realize there’s three common sizes.

        • HakFoo@lemmy.sdf.org
          0·
          4 months ago

          After wrecking some JIS screws on a vintage reciever, I bought a nice Vessel-brand JIS driver set, and use it for all my crosshead needs.

  • Cobrachicken@lemmy.world
    0·
    4 months ago

    I have to admit that each time I saw a torx security screw on a case I had to open (looking at you, Compaq) this made me so angry that I used to punch the middle pin away with a flathead screwdriver, and replace the screw with a regular one later. This was in those past times I did not have a fuckton of assorted torx bits in a gigantic case…

    • NaoPb@eviltoast.orgEnglish
      0·
      4 months ago

      Didn’t Compaq use to have those torx with a slit in them where you could put a flathead screwdriver in the slit part?

        • NaoPb@eviltoast.orgEnglish
          0·
          4 months ago

          Yes I’ve always referred to them as Compaq screws but mainly because I personally saw them on Compaq first. I think HP bought Compaq at some point and that might explain why they are used on both brands. Don’t know which brand started using them first.

          I would have rather had they just used Phillips screws but as far as weird screwheads go these aren’t too bad.

          At least the good thing about them is the threads are standard and they can be replaced with a Phillipshead case screw just as well.

    • ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world
      0·
      4 months ago

      I’m with you. I’ve replaced all the torx screws on my Dell with Philips head screws because fuck you Dell. (all the screws inside were already Philips)

  • rainynight65@feddit.de
    0·
    4 months ago

    Why does Torx Plus have six teeth but tamper-resistant Torx Plus has five? Whereas ‘what the fuck is this’ basically looks like it should be tamper-resistant Torx Plus?

    • renzev@lemmy.worldOP
      0·
      4 months ago

      I guess they wanted to make the screws even more tamper-resistant? With the standard Torx Tamper-Resistant screws, they could often be bypassed by chiseling the pin away with a flathead and a hammer, and then using a standard Torx driver. Can’t do that with the pentalobular design!

  • iAvicenna@lemmy.world
    0·
    4 months ago

    the worst is not when the screwdriver is fucked but the screw is. That is some huge pain in the ass

      • iAvicenna@lemmy.world
        0·
        4 months ago

        wait really? I would imagine those small corners would easily get flattened compared to something with deeper ridges like philips

        • SparrowRanjitScaur@lemmy.world
          0·
          4 months ago

          Phillips strips way, way easier than Torx. Stripping generally happens when a screwdriver cams out, or pops out of the screw. Here are some excerpts from Wikipedia of Torx vs Phillips.

          The hexalobular socket screw drive, often referred to by the original proprietary brand name Torx ( /ˈtɔːrks/) or by the alternative generic name star drive, uses a star-shaped recess in the fastener with six rounded points. It was designed to permit increased torque transfer from the driver to the bit compared to other drive systems. The drive was developed in 1967[44] by Camcar Textron.[45] Torx is very popular in the automotive and electronics industries because of resistance to cam out, and extended bit life, as well as reduced operator fatigue by minimizing the need to bear down on the drive tool to prevent cam out.

          And Philips on the other hand:

          The Phillips screwdriver design has a tendency to cam out during operation due to angled contact surfaces which create an axial force pushing the driver out of the recess as torque is applied. Despite popular belief,[2] there is no clear evidence that this was a deliberate design feature. When the original patent application was filed in 1933, the inventors described the key objectives as providing a screw head recess that (a) may be produced by a simple punching operation and which (b) is adapted for firm engagement with a driving tool with “no tendency of the driver to cam out”.

          I’m not sure about Alan. It doesn’t cam out very much, but it does still strip a lot easier than Torx. Probably due to the smaller contact points.

          • hydrospanner@lemmy.world
            0·
            4 months ago

            Well said.

            And with the hex/Allen, it’s the small contact points as well as the smaller volume of material that needs to be deformed or removed before slippage can occur, as well as the angle of force on the contact point.

            With a hex, the contact point and direction are such that the tool is effectively trying to scrape off material at an angle, and if/when it succeeds even a little bit, it’s now much more prone to fail.

            With a Torx, the contact area might still be small, but it’s being applied to the lobe in a more perpendicular direction, so rather than a scraping failure, it’s more of a force that is pushing directly against steel instead of scraping. Not that it can’t fail, but the route to failure is significantly less likely.

      • uis@lemm.ee
        0·
        4 months ago

        Maybe because different material? Obviously CrV steel won’t get fucked like chinesium, no matter the shape.

    • amenji@programming.dev
      0·
      4 months ago

      I don’t use screw drivers enough to know what these are for. But from a programmer’s standpoint, punishing people to deviate away from standard may cause more harm than good, no?

      Suppose it’s easier/cheaper/more effective to deviate a bit from standard, why should I be punished to do things a bit differently?

      • monotremata@lemmy.caEnglish
        0·
        4 months ago

        One issue is that it can be leveraged to maintain a monopoly. Microsoft famously made a bunch of small modifications to the HTML standard, so that web sites that wanted to work with MS Internet Explorer had to write custom versions to be compatible. But because so many people just used IE because it was bundled with Windows, those “extensions” started to become their own standard, so that then other browsers had to adopt MS’s idiosyncrasies in order to be compatible with the sites, which in turn harmed standardization itself. They even had a term for this technique: “Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.” It nearly worked for them until Google pushed them out with Chrome. Microsoft tried to do the same thing again with Java until the government got involved.

        It’s complicated, certainly, but there are legitimate cases where “just a little tweak” can be quite a big problem for a standard.

  • JadenSmith@sh.itjust.works
    0·
    4 months ago

    Useful tip: with security torx screws, with the little nub in the centre, if you get a small flathead screwdriver to jam in there and wiggle a bit, that centre bit will snap off without much difficulty.
    You should be able to use a regular Torx screwdriver bit after that.

    • sus@programming.dev
      0·
      4 months ago

      because the goal of tamper resistance is to make it harder to unscrew without apple’s approval

    • TheRealKuni@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      4 months ago

      To make it even less likely that someone will be able to get it unscrewed without having the right set.

      They’re not perfect, obviously, but they do harden a target more than regular Torx.

      I use tamper resistant screws to keep an AirTag on my eBike to discourage its removal. Obviously a determined thief could remove it, but lots of stolen bikes get abandoned anyway. My hope is that if it gets stolen it gets abandoned and I can find it then.