Talk:List of screw drives/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Ref?

Is a reference available for the sales statistics? -- Mikeblas 10:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Picture

The picture of the Robertson screwdrivers doesn't add much to the story. A close-up of a screw or screwdriver head would be more useful.

Photo-what good is it?

What good is this photo? It shows the handle and shaft, but you cant make out any detail on the business end! 8-(--Light current 23:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's a new one for you - complete with close-up! Matt Deres 22:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Inaccurate

The reason given for the Robertson Screw not being popular in the US doesn't look right to me. I'd like somebody to verify the reason for Ford's rejection of the Robertson Screw.

It should also be noted that the Robertson Screw this screw allowed the first assembly lines to happen. They were used in Ford's Plant to make the first cars. http://www.discoverychannel.ca/science/how/facts_figures/screw/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brillpappin (talk • contribs) 03:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

Added recess dimensions

I was looking for the dimensions of the recess on square drive/Robertson screws and couldn't find them here, so I added them. My first Wiki-edit!

Is this true, or supported by a reference?

Quote from the article:

Robertson screws are used mainly in Canada, but are growing in popularity around the world, as they are one of the most reliable screwdrivers.

As for growing popularity: I've never seen them before, so I doubt that (but this anecdotal evidence :) ).

As for reliable, to me the torx is the most reliable and seeing the shape of the Robertson, I doubt very much that a Robertson is more reliable than a torx. --Xenan (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Update I see SuperLuigi31 has removed the phrase. Xenan (talk) 18:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Robertson screws are used mainly in Canada

This statement is unsourced, and I think not correct. I know they are used here in Norway. I'll remove it. 62.73.248.52 (talk) 11:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

And they are never used here in the US. I lived in Canada for nine years and found these things the most annoying screws on earth. The hole always gets stripped and then you can't remove the screw. There's a reason why these haven't caught on. G. Csikos, 14 March 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.239.66.108 (talk) 12:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they are all over the U.S. Any supplier of fasteners will sell many, all the time. They are preferred for building decks, etc. It also seems to me that Robertson screwed himself. 24.40.165.154 (talk) 22:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Recreational vehicles and manufactured homes

Robertson screws have been extensively used in the recreational vehicle industry, in trailers and motorhomes with wood framed bodies, and in manufactured homes built on steel frames. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.228.178.123 (talk) 23:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

No Flathead Screwdrivers

Note for the edit I'm about to make: There is NO such thing as a "flathead" screwdriver! There are flathead screws, but this term refers to the shape of the screw's head (conical, with a flat top), not the recess into which a driver fits. Flathead screws can be found with many different shapes of driver recesses, including slot, phillips, hex, torx, etc. The correct terminology is a "straight blade" screwdriver for a "slotted head" screw. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.251.108.221 (talk) 06:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Disagreement

The information below is incorrect! The Pozidriv screw does not have four additional points of contact. These markings are purely for identification purposes. Neither should a Phillips screwdriver be used in a Pozidriv screw as damage to both the screw and the screwdriver will result. The main difference between the two is that the opposite contact faces of a Pozidriv screw or screwdriver are parallel whereas, with the Phillips, they form a V-shape.

I had a mix-up with the drivers. For some reason, I thought the Pozidriv was the Torx. Oops. -- Chris53516 13:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The Pozidriv screw recess does indeed have additional points of contact. You can see them clearly on the Pozidriv bits as the small wedges between each of the four wings of the basic Phillips recess design. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.89.203 (talk) 19:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Posidrive

I didn't put up the orignal suggestion but I've created the talk: article. I agree that the two articles should be merged. --Rehnn83 15:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Spelling

Can we get some consensus on how to spell Posidrive Posidriv Pozidrive Pozidriv? Looks a little odd having the same term spelled several ways in the same paragraph. 81.104.170.167 19:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree there neeeds to be some consisteny. I would say always use Pozidriv as the main term, and then mention the others as "also known as Posidrive, Posidriv etc.." --Rehnn83 20:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Sizes

I can't see any references to the PH000, PH00, PH0, PH1 etc sizes. Any ideas? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.210.30.29 (talk) 15:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

PH1 is the smallest Phillips you will normally see in a 'regular' screwdriver. PH0 on down in size are miniature sizes usually found in jeweler's or machinist's screwdriver sets, not in DIY sets.

Further points

The remark "the cheif disadvantage of Pozidriv screws is that they are far less common than Phillips" is only true in the USA. They are widespread to the point of ubiquity in the UK and the rest of Europe, and I have found them commonly in Africa and South America.

Pozidriv is relatively more common in Canada than the US, but apparently less common than in the UK.

The correct spelling is "POZIDRIV", this was the trade name picked by GKN (Guest, Keen, Nettlefold) in 1963/4. Rights to the profile passed to a number of investment companies, most recently Trifast PLC. (see http://www2.hemscott.com/scripts/AFXnewstory.dll/text?EPIC=TRI&SerialNumber=388&NewsType=CDP&Indate=23/06/2003)

The precision of the recess means that the driver is always on-axis. There is a variant of the driver called SupaDriv which can be used off-axis, although I find they wear badly.

The Philips web site once had a history page explaining that the Phillips recess was intended to cam out, and the Pozi one to remain engaged.

Screwdriver manufacturers have to pay a licence to Trifast, as they do to Phillips for the other profile, hence the rise of generic "crosshead" drivers in cheap sets - that fit nothing and damage everything! -- Brunnian 16:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I was going to make the first point above - I can't remember the last time I saw Phillips head screws on sale. I'm sure they can be found if you want them, but they are so non-standard these days. Wetmikep (talk) 19:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Supa or Supra Drive?

Which one is it? The text says Supa. the chart at the right says Supra. I believe Supa is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.89.203 (talk) 19:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of Supa Drive

Is Supa Drive the SAME as Pozidriv, or is it different? This point needs to be clarified with an appropriate reference, as the text implies that they are the same, seemingly just a difference in brand names. It does not appear all that common from a Google search. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.89.203 (talk) 20:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Pozidriv essentially only works on-axis. Supadriv is a modification of the recess in the screw to permit a small amount of off-axis angle without altering the security of drive. It has only two of the four "tick marks" between the main recesses. United States Patent 4464957 seems to be relevant. There are also SupaDriv drivers. Supadriv® is a registered trademark of European Industrial Services LTD, UK. comment added by Brunnian (talk • contribs) 22:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Supadriv screws have two tickmarks between recesses rather than four Brunnian (talk) 07:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Invention date

When was the PoziDriv head/screwdriver bit invented? When was the patent granted? When were the first screws/drivers manufactured? DaveDodgy (talk) 15:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Still Confused!

I still can't get a clear idea of the differences in the screw head between the Pozi and the Philips.

"The result of this is that the arms of the cross are parallel-sided in the case of Pozidriv, and tapered in the case of Phillips."

From this, it seems the picture of brass coloured screws in the Pozi article is actually of a Philips, and the picture of a stainless steel screw in the Philips article is actually a Pozi!

I'm probably wrong, but that's the way the pictures look to me. Could someone create a clearly labelled diagram? RedTomato (talk) 20:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The captions for both images are correct. I've added an image gallery of some models I made of Phillips and Pozidriv screws and screwdrivers to try and help explain the difference. Wizard191 (talk) 14:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

And the diagrams are very nice but aside from the marker lines, I do not see any practical difference whatsoever. And the arms of the cross being "parallel-sided"... what does that mean ? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.113.56.30 (talk) 02:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not the easiest to see, but in images two and four you can see that the side of the socket tappers on the phillips head and so does the phillips screwdriver head (respectively). The pozidriv driver and socket do not have sides that taper. Wizard191 (talk) 12:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Cam-out

The Pozidriv article says that Pozidriv _does_ resist cam-out - the Polydrive article contradicts that. If you know what the authorities say about this feature, please amend both articles. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Corrected this article. Wizard191 (talk) 16:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!! --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Pozidriv is better agains cam out only when compared to philips. It is still bad. Also when key of smaller size is used there is no benefit. Torx fixes both of these. (The downsize is that you cannot open torx with wrong size tool.) No references, just personal notes, so I will not post them on the article. I think it would be possible to find references for these. --JK

Title

Is "wing" supposed to be capitalized? Wizard191 (talk) 20:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

See also

How is the reference to the triskelion relevant? 74.3.45.60 (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it. Wizard191 (talk) 01:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Pozidriv

The Pozidriv article says that Pozidriv _does_ resist cam-out - the Polydrive article contradicts that. If you know what the authorities say about this featureplease amend both articles. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

the gist of the answer is that while pozidrive improves on *phillips*, polydrive, torx, etc, are a different class of fastener and are in general mechanically superior to the phillips 'family'. I'd welcome brief, readable research on the mechanics involved, but this has not been forthcoming :)Mboard182 (talk) 07:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Strange external link

The external link does not mention the word polydrive, which is not terribly helpful! Norman21 (talk) 19:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it. Wizard191 (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I found a link that might be useful and added it. Norman21 (talk) 17:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately the link you supplied cannot be used because it does not adhere to policy. Please see WP:ELNO for more information. Wizard191 (talk) 18:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh - presumably the link falls foul of this rule: "Links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services..." Sorry about that! Norman21 (talk) 16:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the one. Finding non-commercial images is tough. Wizard191 (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey guys - yeah, the EL doesn't make sense following an earlier (anonymous) edit removing reference to the RIBE/RIBE CV fastener. (continued, jumping out of this reply into RIBE) Mboard182 (talk) 07:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

RIBE confusion

I'm not completely sure what to do here: all indications I can find say RIBE CV is the same as Polydrive... the confusion surrounding the two was the whole reason I decided to submit the article :) I spent several hours trying to get the bottom line on the fastener's definition before I bought tools to remove my VW's drivetrain.

I'm going to roll back the anonymous edit removing RIBE, for these reasons: -all the research I've done indicates they are the same (I'd welcome facts showing otherwise!) -the anon did not provide any info other than 'its wrong' -the other part of the anon's edit, adding info about the Volkswagen group (VAG) is strange - VW does use polydrive fasteners, but it is my understanding they are not the only such OEM; and since mechanical fasteners are sourced based on design requirements, it seems foolish to say that 'VAG [universally uses the] #10' size bit.

With the info on RIBE once again present, it seems appropriate to re-add the EL as well.

Obviously feel free to continue to improve this :) Given the strength of the RIBE CV/polydrive connection (start with google, look for companies who sell the fasterns that mate to them), I would suggest that if we are going to remove the RIBE info, it be because we have found *better* information supporting them not being related.

Especially, it would be great to get some further EL's, but all the good info I can find probably falls under WP:ELNO.

Mboard182 (talk) 07:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I decide to hedge my bets slightly - a quick google search clearly shows that in practice Polydrive is referred to as RIBE, and drivers are most commonly sold referencing both as identical as well. Thus, I updated the wording to reflect this fact and am hoping someone will help get verifiable facts here. Mboard182 (talk) 07:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I contacted 'RIBE' manufacturing, a german firm, asking for more information & possible patents for disambiguation. I would put all this in the RIBE article, but I see it was speedy-deleted after I created it ~2 years ago... Mboard182 (talk) 07:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I actually did some research into this after the IP user removed the information, and from what I could find using internet searches is that there is no such thing as a RIBE drive. Yes there are people that sell "RIBE drive bits", but they are just mistaken for either a polydrive or torx bit. RIBE only produces fasteners, not drives. See [1], which states on page 8: "Due to the lower face and edge pressure during torque transfer, we recommend screws with external or internal hexalobular drive." This would imply either a torx or polydrive system. Nevertheless, I'm quite interested to see what your inquiry with RIBE brings up. Wizard191 (talk) 16:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for external product links

In contributing to this, and other mechanical engineering fastener articles, it is has become painfully obvious that there is little to no accessible documentation on details and mechanics of specific fasteners. No doubt such information exists, somewhere in between the original patents, OEM internal testing, and (likely Pay walled) journal articles... but that doesn't help us with good, readable support documentation here.

In this case, it seems one of the most authoritative sources for info would actually be people selling the stuff...

I am aware of WP:ELNO, but what to do in this case. WP:ELNO does clearly say *generally* to be avoided - is this an appropriate place to break that? If so, how do we communicate the reasoning so the content doesn't continually get taken down by well meaning folks? Mboard182 (talk) 07:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Pursuant to was I just posted above, I believe that these distributors are mistaken, which is why we must find reliable sources. Wizard191 (talk) 16:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The external link does not contain the word "polydrive", which is very odd, especially for someone who had not yet read this discussion page. May I suggest that a new article on RIBE is produced, and the external link put there? Norman21 (talk) 12:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see the discussion section above. From my research I don't believe this IS such a thing as a RIBE drive system. Wizard191 (talk) 14:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Prison screw?

Am i the only one who admits "one-way screw" is a reasonable term, but thinks of them first as "prison screws"?
--Jerzy•t 04:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I've never heard it called a "prison screw", but only as a "one-way screw". Wizard191 (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly what is spline drive?

So are you saying that spline drive is different from Triple square or double hex? All appear to be 12-point fasteners.

Can you provide a better reference to a description and standard sizes than some commercial web site?

Of course this spline drive is different from spline drive sockets.

There is also a recent spline drive intended for bolts that will fit 6-point hex, 12-point (double hex), square, E-Torx, and spline bolts. A number of American comapnies are offering this drive, including SK, Mac, and Proto.

Product time line

The statement that Bristol spline fasteners were "in use no later than the beginning of the 1950's" is misleading, and probably downright wrong. The Bristol company is alive and well, as evidenced by their Web site. I've encountered Bristol spline screws on electronic laboratory equipment manufactured through the 1960s and 1970s, so I know this can't be true. -Quicksilver^{T @} 19:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure that meant "by no later than the beginning...", meaning they came into use by the fifties, maybe earlier. NickelShoe (Talk) 02:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Current use of Bristol screws?

I have never seen a Bristol screw in the US, and only VERY rarely seen the bits offered. Is this mainly a UK fastener design, or is the Bristol design itself hardly used at all anymore, not unlike Frearson (Reed & Prince)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.94.236 (talk) 14:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

They're US, not UK. I've never seen one on any equipment other than US-sourced.

The main reason they're unpopular is that they're difficult to insert the driver, making them almost unusable on a production line. Torx do everything that Bristol do, without this problem. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Prior art statement

At the end of the article is a statement that existing square drive screws should have invalidated the Robertson patent. I'm not sure how to say "It isn't that simple" in Wiki mark-up, but it isn't that simple. I'm going to add "citation needed" and see if anyone has a better suggestion. And for the record, I'm a fairly successful inventor. I knows what I'm talking about on this subject. Tall Girl (talk) 21:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I removed the WP:OR. Wizard191 (talk) 21:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm not sure just removing the referenced patent and conjecture was the right action. I'm going to spend a few minutes and see if I can find the referenced patent and any controversy. Tall Girl (talk) 21:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I found the Cummings patent -- U.S. Patent 161,390. I can't find the "Claims" for the Robertson patent to know if it's worth my while to go look for anyone who says Robertson's patent is simply an obvious variation on Cummings. There are some details in the Robertson graphics that make it appear that Robertson added a novel innovation, in particular changing the shape at the bottom of the recess to allow the square drive to pivot freely within the recessed area. Tall Girl (talk) 21:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source that supports the OR, then it cease to be OR and you can restore it, but from my brief search I couldn't find anything. Feel free to search more. Wizard191 (talk) 22:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Future refs

• http://www.sizes.com/tools/screw_drive.htm
• http://w3.uwyo.edu/~jimkirk/sfast.html

Wizard191 (talk) 01:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Possible merger with Screwdriver?

Should these two articles be integrated and disambiguated? This article seems to vastly exceed the simplicity implicit in having the words "List of" in the title, and there is duplication (for example, the articles share references). Finally, I do not know if this is a WP:LANGVAR issue, but as a native speaker of the American version of English, I've never heard a screwdriver called a screw drive -- I was expecting an article about augers or Archimedes screw. What do you think, Wizard? Eponymous (talk) 00:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

A "screw drive" is not a "screwdriver". A screw driver is a tool, a screw drive isn't. A screw drive encompasses both the tool and the related feature in the fastener. The problem before is that, usually, either the tool or the fastener feature was discussed without respect to the other. Screw drives encompasses both and resolves the issue. Plus most of the articles were stubs so combining them removed the stub problem, especially seeing how most of these don't need more than a paragraph worth of information. Finally, comparisons between various drives are easier with all of them together. Hope that's a clear explanation of this article. Wizard191 (talk) 00:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense to me, once you explain it (I'm not an engineer, so I tend to use looser terminology). Screw deals with head shapes, threads, etc, screwdriver includes handles and mechanisms, screw drive covers where the rubber meets the road as it were. Thanks. Eponymous (talk) 01:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I think this is misnamed also, screwdriver head or tip, or screw head types would be better. A screwdrive is one of these: http://www.tolomatic.com/products/product_detail.cfm?tree_id=45 or these: http://www.geniecompany.com/garage-door-openers/retail_screwdrive.aspx or these http://www.pt-usa.net/sds.html --Bradrh (talk) 22:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Correction and clarification?

I have little experience with Wikipedia editing and etiquette, so I am posting here rather than risking doing something inappropriate.

1) The "slot screw drive" entry is incorrectly under "External types."

2) Re: "A Robertson, also known as a square..." - It may be also known as square, but according to http://www.instructables.com/id/When-a-Phillips-is-not-a-Phillips/step5/Robertson-Drive/ Robertson and square are two different things. It seems to me this distinction should be explained.

Ixodid (talk) 15:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for the notes. As for note 1, the slot screw drive isn't actually under the external types heading, it just looks like it because level 3 and level 4 look very similar. If you check the code you can see it's right. As for note 2, that's quite interesting, however that info can't be incorporated using that source, because it's not a reliable source. Now if there is a a reliable source for that information then by all means add it. Wizard191 (talk) 01:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

3) The Tri-wing screw was also exclusively used in the manufacture of the McDonald Douglas DC-10 series aircraft. At the time of its construction, McDonald Douglas could not get Philips head screws supplied in bulk quantity.50.67.157.154 (talk) 10:30, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Phillips 00 and 000

I visited an electronics store (in Denmark) yesterday, and besides having the Phillips 0-4 they also had what the shop assistant called Phillips 00 and Philips 000, smaller than Phillips 0. I have looked for these online, but they are not easy to find. Some Internet shops have something they call PH00 and PH000, and I think this is it. I hope someone, who knows the facts, can extend the article to cover these screw drives too. Velle (talk) 21:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. Wizard191 (talk) 13:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Pentagon screws

I added the penta screw to the common types of external-type fasteners. While the sockets needed to turn them are relatively uncommon, penta fasteners themselves are extremely common in that they are used to fasten water meter covers, gas valves, electrical equipment, etc. It seems appropriate that they should be mentioned alongside their square and hexagonal brethren. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.57.73.163 (talk) 00:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, anonymous.

Should this article mention that most fire hydrant in the US have pentagon heads? Or is there some other, more appropriate article for discussing the various shapes that are used for Water key (civil engineering) and other wrenches used to apply torque to turn on and off various valves, since at least some valves are technically not "screws"? --68.0.124.33 (talk) 16:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I added it, because they are so closely related. Wizard191 (talk) 17:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)