Talk:Torx/Archives/2019

Usage of these screws

Observation by a DIYer, they seem to be used/placed mainly to defeat DIYing. I noticed regular Phillips used on 99% of the locations on a object w/1% placed in recessed locations on the same object.

Could be, but I think there are other reasons. One is that they might be easier for automated assembly. (I believe that was (one of) the reason for Philips heads. As noted, they also allow large torque for the size. One place I see them is in deck screws, where I suspect they are nicer to walk on. Now that they are getting more common, other designs are used to discourage DIY. Note the pentalobe that Apple uses on MacBook Air. Gah4 (talk) 06:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

They are available in every shop here in Northitaly.If torx would be used to interfiere with disassembling by Consumers why dont they use TorxPlus or TorxParalobe or even Pentalobe? Those 3 types are more scarse here. Lucamon97 (talk) 14:11, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Apple uses T5 and P5 (pentalobe) for some, that I suspect they want to slow users down. I bought a replacement battery and an SSD for a MacBook Air, and both came with T5 and P5 screwdrivers. I suspect, though, that P5 will not be easy to find (yet) in ordinary hardware stores. Each step slows things down for just a little while. Gah4 (talk) 01:26, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

==

I'm a little surprised that no mention of contact surface area is mentioned. If the main purpose of these is to reduce "camming out", and thus to reduce the stripping of screws (a valid improvement to make), I would think that an inclusion of maximizing contact surface area, particularly surface area normal to the direction of rotation, would be part of explanation of why these should slip less than other designs of screw-to-driver mating geometry. The diagram previously mentioned (comparing hex to torx) discusses the impact of contact angle, but not contact area, a factor which, intuitively, seems to be just as important of a factor - after all, flat-heads are perfectly normal to their rotational direction, and philips are quite close; what they lack is sufficient contact area to provide the material strength and frictional force necessary to retain the tool under high torsional loads. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:500:C300:23D2:F119:ED05:B578:61B0 (talk) 00:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Source for Torx Paralobe

https://www.acument.com/licensing/licensed-products/torx-paralobe-drive-system/torx-paralobe-patents-trademarks/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Achloch2000 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC)